Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Keppel Street, WC1E 7HT, London, UK.
Avenir Health, Glastonbury, USA.
BMC Infect Dis. 2018 Jul 21;18(1):340. doi: 10.1186/s12879-018-3239-x.
Increasing 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.
We 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.
In 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.
Our 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.
增加病例报告是国家结核病控制规划(NTP)的首要规划重点之一。为了发现更多病例,NTP 通常需要考虑将结核病病例发现活动扩展到疾病流行率越来越低的人群。这些策略与特异性较低的诊断算法一起,可能导致越来越多的假阳性诊断,这会产生重要的不利后果。
我们应用广泛使用的国家层面模型 TIME,来量化在两种情况下不同病例发现策略的预期影响。在第一种情况下,我们比较了实施两种不同诊断算法(仅提高敏感性与提高敏感性和特异性)以达到规划筛查目标的影响。在第二种情况下,我们研究了将覆盖范围扩大到疾病流行率较低的人群的影响。最后,我们探讨了不考虑对健康个体进行筛查的情况下建模的影响。考虑的结果包括通知数量的变化、额外假阳性与真阳性诊断的比例、阳性预测值(PPV)和发病率。
在情景 1 中,与基线相比(2017 年至 2025 年),方案 A(持续咳嗽和 GeneXpert)产生的新增通知数量比方案 B(任何症状和涂片显微镜检查)少(n=4.0K 对 13.8K)。然而,方案 A 导致 PPV 增加,避免了 2.4K 例假阳性通知,从而对发病率产生了更有效的影响。情景 2 表明,在不提高诊断准确性的情况下,强化病例发现活动扩展到低流行率人群会导致 PPV 绝对下降 11%,在 2017 年至 2025 年期间,额外的 23K 例假阳性诊断导致额外的 1.3K 例真阳性诊断。在不考虑健康人群筛查的情况下模拟情景 2,高估了通过病例发现策略避免的病例数,高估了 6 倍。
我们的研究结果表明,总通知数可能是结核病规划绩效的一个误导性指标,应谨慎解释。在评估潜在的病例发现策略时,NTP 应考虑诊断算法的特异性和增加假阳性诊断的风险。同样,在不考虑潜在不良后果的情况下模拟病例发现策略的影响,可能会高估影响,并导致不良的战略决策。