Public health costs for tuberculosis suspects in Wake County, North Carolina, United States

International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 759-763

  Park, P H ^a   Holland, D P ^a   Wade, A ^b   Goswami, N D ^a   Bissette, D ^c   Stout, Jason E ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Wake County Human Services   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost analysis; Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection; Public health practice; Treatment cost

Indexed keywords

TUBERCULOSTATIC AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATYPICAL MYCOBACTERIOSIS; BACTERIAL PNEUMONIA; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; LATENT TUBERCULOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TUBERCULOSIS; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NORTH CAROLINA; NUCLEIC ACID AMPLIFICATION TECHNIQUES; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS; TUBERCULOSIS;

EID: 84878315682     PISSN: 10273719     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5588/ijtld.12.0739     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in tuberculosis - United States, 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012; 61: 181-185.
2. Geiter L, ed. Ending neglect: the elimination of tuberculosis in the United States. Washington DC, USA: National Academy Press, 2000.
3. Ling D I, Flores L L, Riley L W, Pai M. Commercial nucleic-acid amplification tests for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in respiratory specimens: meta-analysis and meta-regression. PLoS ONE 2008; 3: e1536.
4. Guidelines for the investigation of contacts of persons with infectious tuberculosis. Recommendations from the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association and CDC. MMWR Recomm Rep 2005; 54 (RR-15): 1-47.
5. Miller T L, Reading J A, Hilsenrath P, Weis S E. What are the costs of suspected but not reported tuberculosis? Ann Epidemiol 2006; 16: 777-781. (Pubitemid 44441939)
6. Brown R E, Miller B, Taylor W R, et al. Health-care expenditures for tuberculosis in the United States. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 1595-1600.
7. Manangan L P, Moore M, Macaraig M, et al. Health department costs of managing persons with suspected and noncounted tuberculosis in New York City, three Texas counties and Massachusetts. J Public Health Manag Pract 2006; 12: 248-253. (Pubitemid 44132984)
8. Miller T L, McNabb S J, Hilsenrath P, Pasipanodya J, Drewyer G, Weis S E. The societal cost of tuberculosis: Tarrant County, Texas, 2002. Ann Epidemiol 20: 1-7.
9. Shrestha N K, Tuohy M J, Hall G S, Reischl U, Gordon S M, Procop G W. Detection and differentiation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and non-tuberculous mycobacterial isolates by real-time PCR. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41: 5121-5126. (Pubitemid 37429925)
10. Williams K J, Ling C L, Jenkins C, Gillespie S H, McHugh T D. A paradigm for the molecular identification of Mycobacterium species in a routine diagnostic laboratory. J Med Microbiol 2007; 56 (Pt 5): 598-602. (Pubitemid 46717481)
11. Leung K L, Yip C W, Cheung W F, Lo A C, Ko W M, Kam K M. Development of a simple and low-cost real-time PCR method for the identification of commonly encountered mycobacteria in a high throughput laboratory. J Appl Microbiol 2009; 107: 1433-1439.
12. Guerra R L, Hooper N M, Baker J F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of different strategies for amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis direct testing for cases of pulmonary tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol 2008; 46: 3811-3812.
13. Dowdy D W, Maters A, Parrish N, Beyrer C, Dorman S E. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the gen-probe amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis direct test as used routinely on smear-positive respiratory specimens. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41: 948-953. (Pubitemid 36307091)
14. Nolte F S. Case studies in cost effectiveness of molecular diagnostics for infectious diseases: pulmonary tuberculosis, enteroviral meningitis, and BK virus nephropathy. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43: 1463-1467. (Pubitemid 44845651)
15. Campos M, Quartin A, Mendes E, et al. Feasibility of shortening respiratory isolation with a single sputum nucleic acid amplification test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008; 178: 300-305.
16. Theron G, Pinto L, Peter J, et al. The use of an automated quantitative polymerase chain reaction (Xpert MTB/RIF) to predict the sputum smear status of tuberculosis patients. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54: 384-388.
17. Boehme C C, Nicol M P, Nabeta P, et al. Feasibility, diagnostic accuracy, and effectiveness of decentralised use of the Xpert MTB/RIF test for diagnosis of tuberculosis and multidrug resistance: a multicentre implementation study. Lancet 2011; 377: 1495-1505.
18. Vassall A, van Kampen S, Sohn H, et al. Rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis with the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in high burden countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis. PLoS Med 2011; 8: e1001120.
19. Creese A, Parker D, eds. Cost analysis in primary health care: a training manual for programme managers. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1994.
20. Kirkwood B R, Sterne J A C. Essential medical statistics. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science, 2003.