Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Perspectives
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Perspectives
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Correspondence
136 (
6
); 1044-1047

Comparison of line probe assay with liquid culture for rapid detection of multi-drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis

Department of Microbiology, Lala Ram Sarup Institute of Tuberculosis & Respiratory Diseases, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi 110 030, India
Present address: Professor, Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh 160 012, India

** For correspondence:tbmicro@gmail.com

Licence

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Sir,

Timely diagnosis and prompt treatment of infectious tuberculosis (TB) cases is pivotal towards TB control. Multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) defined as the resistance to at least rifampicin (RIF) and isoniazid (INH) poses grave challenge because of prolonged, limited and expensive treatment options with 10 to 30 per cent of cases resulting in failure of treatment and death12.

Conventional drug susceptibility using solid medium such as Lowenstein - Jensen (L-J) is time consuming whereas liquid medium based methods such as Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) System 960 (BD Diagnostics, USA) are sensitive and faster but involve prohibitive expenditure3. Commercial line probe assays (LPA) such as INNO-LIPA Rif TB (Innogenetics, Ghent, Belgium) and Genotype MTBDR plus assay (Hain Life Sciences, GmbH, Germany) based on reverse hybridization of amplicons to immobilized membrane based probes covering wild type and common mutation sequences of rpoB and rpoB, katG, inhA respectively, have rapid turn-around time of 48 to 72 h4.

In this study, the performance of the Genotype MTBDR plus assay was evaluated using MGIT 960 as gold standard. The study was conducted in Department of Microbiology, Lala Ram Sarup Institute of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases, New Delhi. The Institute is a referral tuberculosis hospital and National Reference Laboratory (NRL) for Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (RNTCP). Suspected MDR-TB patients attending the out-patient unit are referred for rapid culture and drug susceptibility testing. The MGIT 960 liquid culture system in the Institute is accredited for susceptibility testing for first line and second line drugs by Supra National Reference Laboratory (SNRL), Antewerp, Belgium.

A total of 120 smear positive sputum specimens received from 120 patients during a period of five months (October 2010 - February 2011) were processed in BSL-3 laboratory by standard N-acetyl-L-cysteine-sodium hydroxide (NALC-NaOH) method5. The concentrated samples were subjected to culture and drug susceptibility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by MGIT 9605. Final critical concentration of anti-TB drugs used was 0.1 μg/ml of INH and 1.0 μg/ml of RIF6. Following inoculation, samples were aliquoted in duplicate for DNA extraction. DNA extraction, amplification and hybridization were carried out as per manufacturer's instructions in different pre-designated, thoroughly cleaned rooms. DNA from standard strain H37Rv and molecular grade water were used as positive and negative control, respectively with every run.

For any invalid results, test was repeated on DNA extracts stored at -20° C. Each sample was run in duplicate in different batches and results matched for concordance. The result of DNA strips was interpreted as resistant for RIF and INH based on absence of hybridization to any of wild type probes and/or positive hybridization signal of common mutant probes7.

Twenty per cent of randomly selected DNA were sent for external proficiency testing to National JALMA Institute of Leprosy and Other Mycobacterial Diseases, Agra, which is an accredited National Reference Laboratory for LPA. In the internal quality control, 100 per cent concordance was obtained in the duplicate testing of Genotype MTBDR plus with all 120 samples yielding same result. These included 118 valid and two invalid results. The results of external proficiency testing were in 100 per cent concordance with our results.

Overall concordance of RIF and INH result between Genotype MTBDR plus and MGIT 960 was found to be 96.6 and 84.7 per cent, respectively. Other studies have reported good concordance of 84.4-98.1 per cent for RIF and 87.3-90.14 per cent for INH respectively between Genotype MTBDR plus and conventional drug susceptibility tests810.

The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for detection of RIF resistance by Genotype MTBDR plus was found to be 97.6, 94.4, 97.6 and 94.4 per cent respectively (Table I). High sensitivity for RIF has also been found in other studies; 98.1 per cent, (95% CI 95.9-99.1) in the meta-analysis for comparison of Genotype MTBDR and Genotype MTBDR plus assays with conventional susceptibility testing4 and 100 per cent in studies from Uganda and France79. Specificity for RIF resistance in various studies has been found to be 98.7 per cent (pooled specificity with 95% CI 97.3-99.4%), 96.1 and 100 per cent4711. In one study, specificity of detection of RIF resistance by using INNO-LiPA Rif TB compared to conventional methods was found to be 66.7 per cent12. Such variation could be due to the intrinsic limitation of the kit mentioned above.

Table I Comparison of LPA result with MGIT 960 for RIF and INH resistance (n=118)

The sensitivity and specificity for INH resistance for Genotype MTBDR plus was found to be 83.3 and 93.8 per cent, respectively (Table I). Resistance in 17 isolates was not detected by Genotype MTBDR plus which could be due to inability of the test to detect mutation in other genes (ahpC-oxyR and ndh) conferring INH resistance. The low sensitivity of 83.3 per cent, obtained for INH in our study is in accordance to most other studies - 84.3 per cent (95% CI 76.6-89.8), 80.8 and 67 per cent479. However, some studies have found good sensitivity for INH (92.6, 93 and 95.3%, respectively)101113.

The mutation patterns of RIF and INH produced by the Genotype MTBDR plus are displayed in Table II. Specific mutation could be detected in 58 of 82 (70.7%) RIF resistant isolates. Of these, 49 had mutation in codon S531L, 6 (7.3%) in D516V and 3 (3.7%) in H526D. Other reports from India and abroad have found S531L mutation to be commonest7111416. In 24 of 82 (29.3%) RIF resistant isolates, one or more wild type probes were missing with no gain in mutant probes. These isolates are depicted as unknown (UK). Among these maximum isolates had missing WT8-10 (41.7%). In a study from South Vietnam, 66.7 per cent isolates did not have any known mutation11.

Table II Mutation pattern of RIF (rpoB) and INH (katG & inhA) obtained from Genotype MTBDR plus assay

In Genotype MTBDR plus, INH resistance is detected by probes of two genes; katG and inhA Among 86 INH resistant isolates, katG mutation occurred in 77 (89.5%) of isolates. Specific mutations in codon S315T1 of katG gene was found in 73 (94.8%) isolates. Remaining four had missing wild type with no gain in mutant probes. Mutations in InhA gene occurred in 15 of 86 (17.4%) INH resistant isolates. Specific InhA mutations were found in 12 of 15 (80.0%) INH resistant isolates, of which 11 had mutation in codon C15T and one in T8C (Table II). In remaining three isolates, no specific mutation band could be detected. The mutation pattern obtained was similar to other studies in this regard717.

In conclusion, genotype MTBDR plus assay was found to be rapid, sensitive and specific test for routine drug susceptibility testing for diagnosis of RIF resistance which is more crucial for management of MDR-TB. All RIF resistant cases can be shifted to category IV treatment timely, thereby curtailing the spread. Larger field trials are imperative to assess the validity and usefulness of this test in field scenario if the test is deemed to play a pivotal role in tuberculosis control at national level in India.

Acknowledgment

Authors acknowledge the technical support of Foundation of Innovative Diagnostics (FIND), India in the study.

References

  1. CDC. Emergence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis with extensive resistance to second line drugs-world-wide, 2000-2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006;55:301-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , . Drug resistant tuberculosis. In: , , eds. Tuberculosis (2nd ed). New Delhi: Jaypee; . p. :682-713.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , . Diagnostic methods for tuberculosis. Indian J Chest Dis Allied Sci. 1993;35:63-84.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , . GenoType MTBDR assays for the diagnosis of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. Eur Respir J. 2008;32:1165-74.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , . Public health mycobacteriology, A guide for level III laboratory. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control, Division of Laboratory Training and Consultation. US Department of Health and Human Services; .
  6. , , , , , . Multi-center evaluation of fully automated BACTEC mycobacterial growth indicator tube system MGIT 960 for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:150-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , , , . Rapid screening of MDR-TB using molecular line probe assay is feasible in Uganda. BMC Infect Dis. 2010;10:41. (1-7)
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , , , . Comparison of two commercially available DNA line probe assays for detection of multi-drug resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:350-2.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , . Performance of the GenoType MTBDR line probe assay for detection of resistance to rifampicin and isoniazid in strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis with low and high level resistance. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:3569-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , , , , . An integrated approach to rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis and multi-drug resistance using liquid culture and rapid methods in Russia. PLoS One. 2009;4(9):e7129.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , , , . Validation of the GenoType MTBDRplus assay for diagnosis of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis in South Vietnam. BMC Infect Dis. 2010;10:149.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , , , , . Direct application of the INNO-LiPA Rif TB Line probe assay for rapid identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex strains and detection of rifampicin resistance in 360 smear positive respiratory specimens from an area of high incidence of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:4880-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , , , , . Validation of the GenoType MTBDRplus assay for detection of MDR-TB in a public health laboratory in Thailand. BMC Infect Dis. 2010;20:123.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. , , , , , , . RpoB gene sequencing and spoligotyping of multi-drug resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from India. Infect Genet Evol. 2006;6:474-83.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , , . Mutations in the rpoB gene of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical isolates from India. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39:2987-90.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. , , , , , , . Molecular characterization of multidrug-resistant isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from patients in North India. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:443-50.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. , , , , , , . Population genetics study of isoniazid resistance mutations and evolution of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50:2640-9.
    [Google Scholar]

    Fulltext Views
    20

    PDF downloads
    10
    View/Download PDF
    Download Citations
    BibTeX
    RIS
    Show Sections
    Scroll to Top