Abstract

BackgroundIncreasing case notifications is one of the top programmatic priorities of National TB Control Programmes (NTPs). To find more cases, NTPs often need to consider expanding TB case-detection activities to populations with increasingly low prevalence of disease. Together with low-specificity diagnostic algorithms, these strategies can lead to an increasingly high number of false positive diagnoses, which has important adverse consequences.MethodsWe apply TIME, a widely-used country-level model, to quantify the expected impact of different case-finding strategies under two scenarios. In the first scenario, we compare the impact of implementing two different diagnostic algorithms (higher sensitivity only versus higher sensitivity and specificity) to reach programmatic screening targets. In the second scenario, we examine the impact of expanding coverage to a population with a lower prevalence of disease. Finally, we explore the implications of modelling without taking into consideration the screening of healthy individuals. Outcomes considered were changes in notifications, the ratio of additional false positive to true positive diagnoses, the positive predictive value (PPV), and incidence.ResultsIn scenario 1, algorithm A of prolonged cough and GeneXpert yielded fewer additional notifications compared to algorithm B of any symptom and smear microscopy (n = 4.0 K vs 13.8 K), relative to baseline between 2017 and 2025. However, algorithm A resulted in an increase in PPV, averting 2.4 K false positive notifications thus resulting in a more efficient impact on incidence. Scenario 2 demonstrated an absolute decrease of 11% in the PPV as intensified case finding activities expanded into low-prevalence populations without improving diagnostic accuracy, yielding an additional 23 K false positive diagnoses for an additional 1.3 K true positive diagnoses between 2017 and 2025. Modelling the second scenario without taking into account screening amongst healthy individuals overestimated the impact on cases averted by a factor of 6.ConclusionOur findings show that total notifications can be a misleading indicator for TB programme performance, and should be interpreted carefully. When evaluating potential case-finding strategies, NTPs should consider the specificity of diagnostic algorithms and the risk of increasing false-positive diagnoses. Similarly, modelling the impact of case-finding strategies without taking into account potential adverse consequences can overestimate impact and lead to poor strategic decision-making.

Highlights

  • Increasing case notifications is one of the top programmatic priorities of National TB Control Programmes (NTPs)

  • When evaluating potential case-finding strategies, NTPs should consider the specificity of diagnostic algorithms and the risk of increasing false-positive diagnoses

  • Scenario 1 In this scenario, we investigated the epidemiological impact of two different diagnostic algorithms, where Algorithm A represents prolonged cough (≥2 weeks), followed by GeneXpert and Algorithm B represents screening for any symptom, followed by sputum smear microscopy or clinical diagnosis for smear negative patients

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Increasing case notifications is one of the top programmatic priorities of National TB Control Programmes (NTPs). NTPs often need to consider expanding TB case-detection activities to populations with increasingly low prevalence of disease. The annual rate of decline of global incidence is estimated at 1.4% per year between 2000 and 2016 and must be accelerated to 10% to reach the 2025 milestone and to 17% to reach the 2035 target of the End TB Strategy [2, 3]. Individuals with active TB disease that experience diagnostic delays or remain undetected fail to access the care and treatment they need, and contribute to continued transmission, which hinders progress toward the global targets. Recognising the need to detect more cases, NTPs in low- and middle-income countries often need to target screening efforts toward populations at increasingly lower prevalence of disease. The current body of evidence demonstrating a population-level epidemiological impact attributable to community-based active case finding (ACF) is extremely limited [7,8,9]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.