4 research outputs found

    Usefulness of the polymerase chain reaction dot-blot assay, used with Ziehl-Neelsen staining, for the rapid and conveni­ent diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in human immuno­deficiency virus-seropositive and -seronegative individuals

    Get PDF
    There are scarce data regarding the value of molecular tests, when used in parallel with classical tools, for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) under field conditions, especially in regions with a high burden of TB-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) co-infection. We evaluated the usefulness of the polymerase chain reaction dot-blot assay (PCR) used in parallel with Ziehl-Neelsen staining (ZN) for pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) diagnosis, in a TB-HIV reference hospital. All sputum samples from 277 patients were tested by ZN, culture, and PCR. Performances were assessed individually, in parallel, for HIV status, history of anti-TB treatment, and in different simulated TB prevalence rates. Overall, the PTB prevalence was 46% (128/277); in HIV-seropositive (HIV+) individuals, PTB prevalence was 54% (40/74); the ZN technique had a lower sensitivity (SE) in the HIV+ group than in the HIV-seronegative (HIV–) group (43% vs. 68%; Fisher test, P<0.05); and the SE of PCR was not affected by HIV status (Fisher test; P=0.46). ZN, in parallel with PCR, presented the following results: i) among all PTB suspects, SE of 90%, specificity (SP) of 84%, likelihood ratio (LR)+ of 5.65 and LR– of 0.12; ii) in HIV– subjects: SE of 92%, LR– of 0.10; iii) in not previously treated cases: SE of 90%, LR– of 0.11; iv) in TB, prevalence rates of 5-20%; negative predictive values (NPV) of 98-99%. ZN used in parallel with PCR showed an improvement in SE, LR–, and NPV, and may offer a novel approach in ruling out PTB cases, especially in not previously treated HIV– individuals, attended in hospitals in developing nations

    Cost-effectiveness analysis of PCR for the rapid diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Tuberculosis is one of the most prominent health problems in the world, causing 1.75 million deaths each year. Rapid clinical diagnosis is important in patients who have co-morbidities such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection. Direct microscopy has low sensitivity and culture takes 3 to 6 weeks <abbrgrp><abbr bid="B1">1</abbr><abbr bid="B2">2</abbr><abbr bid="B3">3</abbr></abbrgrp>. Therefore, new tools for TB diagnosis are necessary, especially in health settings with a high prevalence of HIV/TB co-infection.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a public reference TB/HIV hospital in Brazil, we compared the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for diagnosis of pulmonary TB: Acid fast bacilli smear microscopy by Ziehl-Neelsen staining (AFB smear) plus culture and AFB smear plus colorimetric test (PCR dot-blot).</p> <p>From May 2003 to May 2004, sputum was collected consecutively from PTB suspects attending the Parthenon Reference Hospital. Sputum samples were examined by AFB smear, culture, and PCR dot-blot. The gold standard was a positive culture combined with the definition of clinical PTB. Cost analysis included health services and patient costs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The AFB smear plus PCR dot-blot require the lowest laboratory investment for equipment (US20,000).Thetotalscreeningcostsare3.8timesforAFBsmearpluscultureversusforAFBsmearplusPCRdotblotcosts(US 20,000). The total screening costs are 3.8 times for AFB smear plus culture versus for AFB smear plus PCR dot blot costs (US 5,635,760 versus US1,498,660).CostspercorrectlydiagnosedcasewereUS 1,498, 660). Costs per correctly diagnosed case were US 50,773 and US13,749forAFBsmearpluscultureandAFBsmearplusPCRdotblot,respectively.AFBsmearplusPCRdotblotwasmorecosteffectivethanAFBsmearplusculture,whenthecostoftreatingallcorrectlydiagnosedcaseswasconsidered.Thecostofreturningpatients,whicharenottreatedduetoanegativeresult,tothehealthservice,washigherinAFBsmearplusculturethanforAFBsmearplusPCRdotblot,US 13,749 for AFB smear plus culture and AFB smear plus PCR dot-blot, respectively. AFB smear plus PCR dot-blot was more cost-effective than AFB smear plus culture, when the cost of treating all correctly diagnosed cases was considered. The cost of returning patients, which are not treated due to a negative result, to the health service, was higher in AFB smear plus culture than for AFB smear plus PCR dot-blot, US 374,778,045 and US$ 110,849,055, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>AFB smear associated with PCR dot-blot associated has the potential to be a cost-effective tool in the fight against PTB for patients attended in the TB/HIV reference hospital.</p
    corecore