首页> 外文期刊>BMC Infectious Diseases >Rational use of Xpert testing in patients with presumptive TB: clinicians should be encouraged to use the test-treat threshold
【24h】

Rational use of Xpert testing in patients with presumptive TB: clinicians should be encouraged to use the test-treat threshold

机译:推测性结核病患者合理使用Xpert检测:应鼓励临床医生使用检测阈值

获取原文
           

摘要

Background A recently published Ugandan study on tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis in HIV-positive patients with presumptive smear-negative TB, which showed that out of 90 patients who started TB treatment, 20% (18/90) had a positive Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) test, 24% (22/90) had a negative Xpert test, and 56% (50/90) were started without Xpert testing. Although Xpert testing was available, clinicians did not use it systematically. Here we aim to show more objectively the process of clinical decision-making. First, we estimated that pre-test probability of TB, or the prevalence of TB in smear-negative HIV infected patients with signs of presumptive TB in Uganda, was 17%. Second, we argue that the treatment threshold, the probability of disease at which the utility of treating and not treating is the same, and above which treatment should be started, should be determined. In Uganda, the treatment threshold was not yet formally established. In Rwanda, the calculated treatment threshold was 12%. Hence, one could argue that the threshold was reached without even considering additional tests. Still, Xpert testing can be useful when the probability of disease is above the treatment threshold, but only when a negative Xpert result can lower the probability of disease enough to cross the treatment threshold. This occurs when the pre-test probability is lower than the test-treat threshold, the probability of disease at which the utility of testing and the utility of treating without testing is the same. We estimated that the test-treatment threshold was 28%. Finally, to show the effect of the presence or absence of arguments on the probability of TB, we use confirming and excluding power, and a log10 odds scale to combine arguments. Conclusion If the pre-test probability is above the test-treat threshold, empirical treatment is justified, because even a negative Xpert will not lower the post-test probability below the treatment threshold. However, Xpert testing for the diagnosis of TB should be performed in patients for whom the probability of TB was lower than the test-treat threshold. Especially in resource constrained settings clinicians should be encouraged to take clinical decisions and use scarce resources rationally.
机译:背景技术乌干达大学最近发表的一项关于在艾滋病毒呈阳性,涂片阴性结核病阳性患者中诊断结核病的研究表明,在开始结核病治疗的90名患者中,有20%(18/90)的Xpert MTB / RIF阳性(Xpert)测试中,有24%(22/90)的Xpert测试结果为阴性,而有56%(50/90)的用户未进行Xpert测试。尽管可以使用Xpert测试,但是临床医生并未系统地使用它。在这里,我们旨在更客观地展示临床决策过程。首先,我们估计乌干达的结核病检测前可能性(即涂片阴性,HIV感染者中有结核性结核病迹象的结核病患病率)为17%。其次,我们认为应确定治疗阈值,确定治疗效用和不治疗的效用相同的疾病概率以及应开始治疗的概率。在乌干达,尚未正式确定治疗门槛。在卢旺达,计算出的治疗阈值为12%。因此,人们可能会争辩说达到了阈值甚至没有考虑其他测试。尽管如此,当疾病的可能性高于治疗阈值时,Xpert测试仍然有用,但只有当Xpert结果为阴性时,疾病的可能性才可以降低到足以超过治疗阈值的水平。当预测试概率低于测试治疗阈值时,就会发生这种情况,在这种情况下,测试的效用和未经测试的治疗的效用相同的疾病概率。我们估计测试治疗阈值为28%。最后,为了显示存在或不存在论点对TB概率的影响,我们使用确认和排除功效,并使用log10比值标度比例来组合论点。结论如果测试前概率高于测试阈值,则经验疗法是合理的,因为即使Xpert值为负也不会使测试后概率低于治疗阈值。但是,对于患有结核病的概率低于测试治疗阈值的患者,应进行Xpert诊断结核病的检测。特别是在资源有限的环境中,应鼓励临床医生做出临床决策并合理地使用稀缺资源。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号