Patient pathway analysis of tuberculosis diagnostic delay: a multicentre retrospective cohort study in China
Lu Zhang,Tao-Ping Weng,Hong-Yu Wang,Feng Sun,Yuan-Yuan Liu,Ke Lin,Zhe Zhou,Yuan-Yuan Chen,Yong-Guo Li,Ji-Wang Chen,Li-Jun Han,Hui-Mei Liu,Fu-Li Huang,Cui Cai,Hong-Ying Yu,Wei Tang,Zheng-Hui Huang,Long-Zhi Wang,Lei Bao,Peng-Fei Ren,Guo-Fang Deng,Jian-Nan Lv,Yong-Lan Pu,Fan Xia,Tao Li,Qun Deng,Gui-Qing He,Yang Li,Wen-Hong Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.12.031
IF: 13.31
2021-07-01
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Objectives</h3><p>Diagnostic delay of tuberculosis (TB) is an important but underappreciated problem. Our study aimed to analyse the patient pathway and possible risk factors of the long diagnostic delay (LDD).</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Methods</h3><p>We enrolled 400 new bacteriologically diagnosed patients with pulmonary TB from 20 hospitals across China. LDD was defined as the interval between the initial-care-visit and the diagnosis confirmation exceeding 14 days. Its potential risk factors were investigated by multivariate logistic regression and multilevel logistic regression. Hospitals in China were classified by increasing size, from level 0 to 3. TB laboratory equipment in hospitals were also evaluated.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>The median diagnostic delay was 20 days (IQR: 7-72 days), and 229 of 400 patients (57.3%, 95% CI 52.4-62.1) had LDD. Fifteen percent of participants were diagnosed at the initial-care-visit. Compared to level 0 facilities, choosing level 2 (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12-0.62, p = 0.002) and level 3 facilities (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.84, p = 0.019) for the initial-care-visit was independently associated with less LDD. Equipping with smear, culture, and Xpert at intial-care-visit simultaneously also helped avoiding LDD. (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09-0.82, p = 0.020). The multilevel logistic regression yielded similar results. Availability of smear, culture, and Xpert was lower in level 0-1 facilities than in level 2-3 facilities (p<0.001, respectively).</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusions</h3><p>Most patients failed to be diagnosed at the initial-care-visit. Patients who went to low-level facilities initially had a higher risk of LDD. Improving TB laboratory equipment especially at low-level facilities is urgently needed.</p>
infectious diseases,microbiology