Cost Evaluation of Current Pulmonary MTB Diagnosis Process in a Hospital in Abu Dhabi and Proposal to Implement the World Health Organization MTB Clinical Pathway
PDF
Cite
Share
Request
Original Article
P: 93-98
June 2023

Cost Evaluation of Current Pulmonary MTB Diagnosis Process in a Hospital in Abu Dhabi and Proposal to Implement the World Health Organization MTB Clinical Pathway

Eurasian J Emerg Med 2023;22(2):93-98
1. New Medical Centre, Emergency Medicine Department, Abu Dhabi, UAE
2. King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases, Dammam, Kingdome of Saudi Arabia
3. Shaikh Shakbout Medical City, Department of Emergency Medicine, Abu Dhabi, UAE
No information available.
No information available
Received Date: 22.04.2022
Accepted Date: 25.01.2023
Publish Date: 20.06.2023
PDF
Cite
Share
Request

ABSTRACT

Aim:

Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a leading cause of death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends X-pert MTB/RIF or X-pert Ultra as the initial test for pulmonary MTB diagnosis. While several studies have explored the cost-effectiveness of this technology, none have specifically looked at its use in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). To evaluate the average estimated cost and length of stay for suspected MTB patients admitted from the emergency department to the respiratory isolation rooms to rule out MTB using the MTB classic diagnosis pathway of 3 AFB smear and MTB cultures compared to the estimated cost if the WHO X-pert MTB/RIF outpatient pathway is implemented for suspected MTB.

Materials and Methods:

A quality improvement project was conducted with a retrospective audit and data analysis of suspected pulmonary MTB infection at a secondary care hospital in Abu Dhabi, UAE. We report the true accrued costs of the current admission practice for management of suspected pulmonary MTB. We also report the estimated cost of working up these same patients with the WHO pathway using X-pert MTB/RIF testing.

Results:

Data analysis demonstrated that 62% of the cost of working up suspected pulmonary MTB was accumulated during admissions for patients who ultimately proved to be MTB negative. Cost evaluation of study data suggests that using the WHO X-pert MTB/RIF clinical pathway would cost approximately one-tenth as much as the current practice.

Conclusion:

This analysis presents evidence for cost savings associated with the use of the WHO X-pert MTB/RIF clinical pathway in a low MTB incidence area such as the UAE. Further analysis to assess how the pulmonary MTB diagnostic pathway was influenced by COVID-19 is needed.

Introduction

Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is an infectious disease commonly affecting the lungs (pulmonary MTB), also it may involve other organs (1). Prompt diagnosis of active pulmonary MTB is a priority for TB control, both for treating the individual and for public health intervention to reduce further spread in the community (2). MTB is often a curable disease if it is detected early and effectively treated (3). In 2018, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) total population was 10 million. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated UAE MTB incidence at 1 (0.88-1.2) per 100 000 signifying that UAE is a low MTB incidence and burden country (4).

Current practice in many hospitals in UAE involves admitting patients with suspected MTB to the respiratory isolation ward to confirm or rule out the MTB infection. Patients are subjected to multiple diagnostic tests, including chest X-ray (CXR) and acid-fast bacilli sputum smear microscopy (AFB smear). Adding to that, the gold standard MTB culture and at times additional diagnostic tests such as QuantiFERON Gold test or MTB rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) may be performed. This practice has an impact on the system, resulting in increasing hospital admission rates & prolonged hospital stay, and hospital overcrowding which then leads to emergency department (ED) exit block. these practices affect patients directly through increased total cost, and indirectly can impact the patient’s and their family’s social and mental health (5,6).

WHO recommends X-pert MTB/RIF or the X-pert Ultra, the newest version, as the initial test for MTB (7). This testing procedure is to replaces the current standard practice of the three AFB smear (8-12). X-pert MTB/RIF test has multiple advantages: it is an automated PCR test using the GeneXpert platform, it can detect both MTB complex and rifampicin resistance in a single test with high sensitivity and specificity profile on both culture positive and culture negative sputum samples, and it is a rapid test with results available in two hours with minimal hands-on technical time. The assay’s sample reagent has tuberculocidal properties eliminating biosafety concerns during the test procedure (7,13-15). WHO in 2013 published a pathway utilizing X-pert MTB/RIF test to screen / work up suspected MTB as outpatient (16). To our knowledge, there is no published literature regarding the cost and hospital resource use for suspected MTB patients in the UAE. This quality improvement project evaluates the average estimated cost and length of stay for suspected MTB patients admitted from the ED to the respiratory isolation rooms using the current practice described above and estimated cost if the WHO X-pert MTB/RIF outpatient pathway is implemented for suspected MTB.

Materials and Methods

This was a quality improvement project where we conducted a retrospective audit and data analysis for suspected MTB patients admitted through our ED over a 1-year period. The hospital where the analysis was performed is a secondary care hospital in Abu-Dhabi with 380 beds. In 2017, the hospital had a bed occupancy rate of 84% with an average length of stay (LoS) of 6.2 days.

All patients admitted through the ED for suspicion of pulmonary MTB over the calendar year 2017 were included in this analysis, and there were no patients excluded for any reason. The primary goal of the audit was to evaluate the cost and LoS of patients who tested negative for pulmonary MTB. Secondary analysis included the cost and LoS of patients who tested positive for pulmonary MTB. We collected data from health information management, and cost data was requested and obtained from the revenue development management with the assistance of the patient service accountant. All data storage and an analysis were performed in Microsoft Excel.

Ethics committee approval was not required for quality improvement projects at our hospital when this project was planned. Clinical data can be used for research under the general consent that all patients sign on admission to the ED. Appropriate methods were used for the storage, security, and destruction of the excel data collection sheet.

Results

In 2017, 200 patients with suspected MTB were admitted from the ED, of which 123 were male and 77 were female. Thirteen patients were below 18 years of age and 31 patients were above 65 years of age. Thirty-one patients were UAE nationals and 169 patients were expatriates. 33% (66/200 patients) were diagnosed with pulmonary MTB and 67% (134/200 patients) did not have pulmonary MTB (Table 1).

Table 1

One hundred thirty-four patients (67%) who did not have pulmonary MTB had an average LoS of 13 days. 62% of the total hospital cost was for these patients (around $1,216,119.88 USD) and the average cost per MTB negative patient was around $9,075.52 USD.

Sixty-six patients (33%) were diagnosed with pulmonary MTB with an average LoS 27 days. This accounted for 38% of the total cost. The overall cost for the pulmonary MTB-positive patients was $735,235.00 USD, and the average cost per person was $11,140.42 USD (Tables 2, 3).

Table 2
Table 3

Statistical Analysis

Cost Analysis

The total cost for evaluating 200 patients with suspected MTB as inpatients was $1,951,387.31 USD. Detailed analysis showed per night average cost of a respiratory isolation room at $375.71 USD, single AFB smear at $14.16 USD, QuantiFeRON test at $157.91 USD, MTB culture at $27.50 USD, and Gene X-pert MTB average per-test costs is $82.20 USD per test. The estimated cost of evaluating suspected MTB patient as out patient who presents to the ED and tests negative inclusive of a repeat Gene X-pert test when MTB is highly suspected or if first test is not conclusive in addition to a follow-up appointment in the Respiratory Clinic was calculated to be $996.31 USD (16). Figure 1 outlines the WHO X-pert MTB/RIF clinical pathway and Table 4 details the cost analysis and minimum cost per patient for MTB likely negative patients if managed as inpatients versus outpatients. On the other hand, the estimated minimum cost saving per patient applying the WHO X-pert MTB/RIF outpatient screening clinical pathway is estimated to be $3923.91 USD (see Table 5 for details).

Figure 1
Table 4
Table 5

Discussion

In 2010, WHO endorsed X-pert MTB/RIF as an initial diagnostic test for people thought to have MDR-TB or HIV-associated tuberculosis (15,17). In 2013, WHO extended its proposal that X-pert MTB/RIF can replace AFB smear as the initial diagnostic test for all adults and children patients with suspected MTB (10,15,18). Data showed that 67% of suspected pulmonary MTB tested negative and their average LoS was 13 days, which has a high impact on hospital admission rate, bed occupancy rate, and ED exist block. The average cost was $9,075.52 USD per patient, which includes the cost of diagnostics (about 10-20%) and admission and hospital stay expenses, which highlights multiple opportunities for cost saving. These patients also stay in a respiratory isolation room for days, which creates anxiety for the patients and their families (5).

Studies in patients with suspected MTB reported X-pert MTB/RIF sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 98%. In a smear-positive with culture-positive, X-pert MTB/RIF sensitivity is about 98%, while in a smear-negative with culture-positive MTB, the sensitivity is 67% (19,20). when compared to X-pert MTB/RIF, X-pert Ultra yielded a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 96% (14). X-pert Ultra, when compared to X-pert MTB/RIF, for detection of smear-negative culture-positive MTB, yielded a higher sensitivity of 63% than X-pert MTB/RIF of 46%, and lower specificity of 96% than X-pert MTB/RIF 98% (14). In contrast, AFB smear is a low-cost test but with low sensitivity of between 50 and 60%, which can result in a large number of MTB cases that can go undiagnosed until culture results are obtained (21-28). Around 5000 to 10,000 CFU/mL must be present in the specimen for MTB bacteria to be visible by AFB smear by contrast, X-pert MTB/RIF can detect as low as 112.6 CFU/mL, and X-pert Ultra can detect as low as 15.6 CFU/mL (14,21-23).

Fifteen studies analyzed X-pert MTB/RIF cost-effectiveness, with most studies are taking place in sub-Saharan Africa. Twelve studies found that X-pert MTB/RIF is cost-effective in their setting and 3 studies (in India, Malawi, and South Africa) showed a neutral cost profile (24). One study quoted that X-pert MTB/RIF saved $2,278 USD per admission and $533,520 USD per year, and most cost savings arose from reductions in LoS in respiratory isolation (18).

Millman et al. (19) reported that X-pert MTB/RIF decreased isolation bed utilization from an average of 2.7 to 1.4 days per suspected MTB patient. Likewise, they showed a reduction in total annual isolation bed usage from 632 to 328 bed-days, directly bringing down bed occupancy rates, and potentially reducing ED exit block (19).

In 2015, the Food and Drug Administration approved the X-pert MTB/RIF test for pulmonary MTB detection as an initial diagnostic test replacing AFB smear, and this test has been widely implemented in 18 countries (17,19,25). Implementing the X-pert MTB/RIF in UAE and other low MTB incidence and burden countries will be cost-saving and cost-effective compared with the traditional admission for 3 AFP smears and culture. Data analysis showed that changing this practice could reduce the cost of MTB workup by about 90% while providing for safe practice. WHO pathway suggest that suspected MTB patients based on symptoms or abnormal CXR, or close contact with pulmonary MTB patients, should undergo X-pert MTB/RIF as an initial diagnostic test (Figure 1) (15,26,27).

Figure 1

To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating the cost of the current pulmonary MTB diagnostic process in the UAE. It describes the effect of this diagnostic process on LoS and costs for patients with suspected pulmonary MTB. The current average cost of an inpatient-based MTB is almost 10 times higher at $9,075.52 USD versus the proposed outpatient X-pert MTB/RIF - based evaluation, which will cost about $996.31 USD.

Study Limitations

This is a single-center retrospective one-year audit in a low-incidence TB country, resulting in a small number of MTB-infected patients. In addition this study analysed 2017 data and was ready for publication before the Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which resulted in delayed submission; hence, there may be practice changes already due to COVID-19 and the demand on airborne isolation rooms in any system. A new audit to address the changes in the MTB diagnostic pathway and how it was influcned by COVID-19 in UAE will be needed.

Conclusion

Working up a patient with pulmonary MTB as an inpatient is costly and unjustified in the presence of an alternative cost-effective diagnostic pathway using X-pert MTB/RIF as an initial test to rule in/out pulmonary MTB within 2 hrs in an outpatient setting without the need for inpatient admission. Further analysis to assess how the pulmonary MTB diagnostic pathway was influenced by COVID-19 is needed.

Acknowledgement

Mafraq Hospital Health Information Management Mafraq Hospital Finance Department.

Ethics

Ethics Committee Approval: Ethics committee approval was not required for quality improvement projects at our hospital when this project was planned.

Informed Consent: Retrospective study.

Peer-review: Externally and internally peer-reviewed.

Authorship Contributions

Concept: W.G., Y.A., A.A., Design: W.G., Y.A., A.A., Data Collection or Processing: W.G., A.A., Analysis or Interpretation: W.G., Y.A., S.A., A.A., Literature Search: W.G., A.A., Writing: W.G., Y.A., S.A., A.A.

Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.

Financial Disclosure: The authors declared that this study received no financial support.

References

1
Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, Lim S, Shibuya K, Aboyans V, et al. Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet Lond. 2012;380:2095-128.
2
Murray CJ, Vos T, Lozano R, Naghavi M, Flaxman AD, Michaud C, et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012;380:2197-223.
3
Towards a tuberculosis-free world – ICRC. Last Accessed Date: 10.11.2020. Available from: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/report/tuberculosis-federation-report-2011-03-23.htm
4
Almarzooqi F, Alkhemeiri A, Aljaberi A, Hashmey R, Zoubeidi T, Souid AK. Prospective cross-sectional study of tuberculosis screening in United Arab Emirates. Int J Infect Dis. 2018;70:81-5.
5
A Pachi A, Bratis D, Moussas G, Tselebis A. Psychiatric morbidity and other factors affecting treatment adherence in pulmonary tuberculosis patients. Tuberc Res Treat. 2013;2013:489865.
6
Liefooghe R, Michiels N, Habib S, Moran MB, De Muynck A. Perception and social consequences of tuberculosis: a focus group study of tuberculosis patients in Sialkot, Pakistan. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1685-92.
7
WHO | Rapid Implementation of the Xpert MTB/RIF diagnostic test,” WHO. Last Accessed Date: May 31, 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/tb/publications/tb-amplificationtechnology-implementation/en/
8
Rapid Molecular Detection of Tuberculosis and Rifampin Resistance | NEJM. Last Accessed Date: May 31, 2021. Available from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa0907847
9
WHO | Implementing tuberculosis diagnostics: A policy framework, WHO. Last Accessed Date: May 31, 2021. Available from: http://www.who.int/tb/publications/implementing_TB_diagnostics/en/
10
WHO Organization, Automated real-time nucleic acid amplification technology for rapid and simultaneous detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance: Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB in adults and children: policy update. World Health Organization, 2013. Last Accessed Date: May 31, 2021. [Online]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/112472
11
Consensus Statement on the Use of Cepheid Xpert MTB/RIF Assay in Making Decisions to Discontinue Airborne Infection Isolation in Healthcare Settings | National Prevention Information Network | Connecting public health professionals with trusted information and each other. Last Accessed Date: May 31, 2021. Available from: https://npin.cdc.gov/publication/consensus-statement-use-cepheid-xpert-mtbrif-assay-making-decisions-discontinue-airborne
12
Association of Rapid Molecular Testing With Duration of Respiratory Isolation for Patients With Possible Tuberculosis in a US Hospital | Infectious Diseases | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network.” Last Accessed Date: May 31, 2021. Available from: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2697838
13
“Discontinuation of Airborne Infection Isolation for Tuberculosis.” Last Accessed Date: 31, 2021. Available from: https://www.jwatch.org/na41554/2016/06/10/discontinuation-airborne-infection-isolation-tuberculosis
14
Horne DJ, Kohli M, Zifodya JS, Schiller I, Dendukuri N, Tollefson D, et al. Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults,” Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;6:CD009593.
15
Banada PP, Sivasubramani SK, Blakemore R, Boehme C, Perkins MD, Fennelly K, et al. Containment of bioaerosol infection risk by the Xpert MTB/RIF assay and its applicability to point-of-care settings. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48:3551-7.
16
“WHO | Systematic screening for active tuberculosis: principles and recommendations,” WHO. Last Accessed Date: Jun 01, 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/tb/tbscreening/en/
17
“WHO | Xpert MTB/RIF implementation manual,” WHO. Last Accessed Date: May 31, 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/tb/publications/xpert_implem_manual/en/
18
WHO Organization, WHO meeting report of a technical expert consultation: non-inferiority analysis of Xpert MTB/RIF ultra compared to Xpert MTB/RIF, Art. no. WHO/HTM/TB/2017.04, 2017. [Online]. Last Accessed Date: May 31, 2021. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/254792
19
Millman AJ, Dowdy DW, Miller CR, Brownell R, Metcalfe JZ, Cattamanchi A, et al. Rapid molecular testing for TB to guide respiratory isolation in the U.S.: a cost-benefit analysis. PloS One. 2013;8:e79669.
20
WHO Organization, Compendium of WHO guidelines and associated standards: ensuring optimum delivery of the cascade of care for patients with tuberculosis. World Health Organization, 2018. Last Accessed Date: May 31, 2021. [Online]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272644
21
Diagnostic Standards and Classification of Tuberculosis in Adults and Children | This Official Statement of the American Thoracic Society and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was Adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, July 1999. This Statement was endorsed by the Council of the Infectious Disease Society of America, September 1999 | American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.” Last Accessed Date: May 31, 2021. Available from: https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/ajrccm.161.4.16141
22
Steingart KR, Henry M, Ng V, Hopewell PC, Ramsay A, Cunningham J, et al. Fluorescence versus conventional sputum smear microscopy for tuberculosis: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006;6:570-81.
23
Castan P, de Pablo A, Fernández-Romero N, Rubio JM, Cobb BD, Mingorance J, et al. Point-of-Care System for Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Rifampin Resistance in Sputum Samples. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52:502-7.
24
Chakravorty S, Simmons AM, Rowneki M, Parmar H, Cao Y, Ryan J, et al. The New Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra: Improving Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Resistance to Rifampin in an Assay Suitable for Point-of-Care Testing. MBio. 2017;8:e00812-7.
25
Ardizzoni E, Fajardo E, Saranchuk P, Casenghi M, Page AL, Varaine F, et al. Implementing the Xpert® MTB/RIF Diagnostic Test for Tuberculosis and Rifampicin Resistance: Outcomes and Lessons Learned in 18 Countries. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0144656.
26
Cepheid | MTB/RIF Molecular Test - Xpert MTB/RIF. Last Accessed Date: May 31, 2021. Available from: https://www.cepheid.com/en_US/tests/Critical-Infectious-Diseases/Xpert-MTB-RIF
27
Algorithm for laboratory diagnosis and treatment-monitoring of pulmonary tuberculosis and drug-resistant tuberculosis using state-of-the-art rapid molecular diagnostic technologies (2017).” Last Accessed Date: May 31, 2021. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/en/publications/abstracts/algorithm-for-laboratory-diagnosis-and-treatment-monitoring-of-pulmonary-tuberculosis-and-drug-resistant-tuberculosis-using-state-of-the-art-rapid-molecular-diagnostic-technologies-2017