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
139 (
3
); 471-473

Reliability of Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) 960 for the detection of isoniazid resistance in a tuberculosis endemic setting

Department of Bacteriology National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis (Formerly Tuberculosis Research Centre) Chetpet, Chennai 600 031, India

*For correspondence: vanaja _kumar51@yahoo.co.in

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,

Isoniazid (INH) is one of the forerunners in the treatment of tuberculosis (TB). Resistance to INH along with that of rifampicin (RIF) is considered multidrug resistance (MDR)1. Several methods have been validated for detection of MDR-TB. One of the promising methods well evaluated and accepted in varying settings is the fluorimetry based liquid culture detection system, Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT 960) (Becton and Dickinson, USA)234. However, reports of “false resistance” to INH at a concentration of 0.1 μg/ml recommended by the manufacturer have been documented567. Studies suggest that use of a higher concentration (0.4 μg/ml) provides better distinction of the “false resistant” (FR) isolates589. Being a vital drug in the treatment of tuberculosis, such discrepancies might render treatment ineffective. In the current study, we assessed the reliability of the lone use of the manufacturer recommended drug concentration of INH (0.1 μg/ml) with respect to conventional minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) method on Lowenstein- Jensen (LJ) medium.

The study conducted in the department of Bacteriology, National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, India, included two batches of cultures. The first batch consisted of 101 Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates obtained from new (n=30) and 71 previously treated pulmonary TB patients (inclusive of 45 Category I and 26 Category IV failure). These isolates were tested for drug susceptibility (DST) to INH at 0.1μg/ml concentration by MGIT 960 system. Conventional DST by MIC method on L-J medium at concentrations 0.2, 1.0, and 5.0 μg/ml was performed for all the isolates10.

The second batch had 60 M. tuberculosis isolates received from the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Belgium, as a part of routine external quality assurance (EQA). The isolates were tested for susceptibility to INH by MIC method and proportion susceptibility test (PST) at a concentration of 0.2 μg/ml10, BACTEC 460 and MGIT 960 at a concentration of 0.1 μg/ml. DST by liquid culture systems was performed according to the manufacturer's protocol. Appropriate numbers of duplicates were included in MGIT 960 and BACTEC 460 as internal quality controls. Statistical methods using Chi square testing to assess the performance parameters of MGIT 960 were performed using SPSS software version 14.0, USA.

The results indicated high sensitivity (>91%), specificity (>95%) and accuracy (>92%) for detection of INH resistance by MGIT 960 in comparison with conventional MIC method (Table I) for the 101 isolates tested. Four isolates exhibited discordant results by MGIT 960 of which two were categorized as false resistant (FR) and two as false susceptible (FS).

Table I Comparison of INH susceptibility between MGIT 960 and conventional MIC method among clinical isolates (n=101)

Comparison of MGIT 960 with phenotypic methods (MIC and PST) and BACTEC 460 for EQA isolates showed a good concordance in sensitivity and specificity (Table II). MGIT 960 indicated three FR and FS isolates in comparison with MIC and PST. One of the three FS isolates in MGIT 960 showed intermediate resistance (IR) phenotype by conventional MIC method. According to Van Deun11 reporting IR strain as susceptible is acceptable in case of INH. Similar case of FS isolate was observed by Abe et al12 with phenotypic resistance at 1.0 μg/ml. Two of the FS isolates showed MIC of 5 μg/ml by conventional MIC method. MGIT 960 in comparison with BACTEC 460 demonstrated three FS isolates and a single FR isolate. Results of the latter were resolved in accordance with MGIT 960 when compared with MIC and PST methods. The susceptibility pattern of duplicates was concordant with that of original.

Table II Comparison of INH susceptibility by MGIT 960, BACTEC 460 and phenotypic methods among external quality assurance (EQA) isolates (n = 60*)

Use of MGIT 960 in routine mycobacteriology has dramatically reduced the turn around time for detection of resistance thus paving way for early and accurate intervention13. Sensitivity and specificity of MGIT 960 for detection of INH resistance observed in our study was in accordance with earlier reports679. Studies indicate that MGIT 960 has a tendency to indicate more INH resistance rates than BACTEC 460 with increased chance for FR4814. False resistant and FS isolates were observed to a limited extent in the present study. The uneven distribution of the heterogeneous population in subculture might have resulted in a false susceptible result2. In addition, varying growth indices in MGIT 960 while preparing inocula could also contribute to such discrepancies at higher frequencies. This warrants further evaluation with a larger number of isolates with intermediate resistances and different ranges of growth indices.

Presence of micro clumps in the inoculum carrying uneven distribution of mycobacteria, seeding the inoculum using pipette which allows large clumps and difference in the DST procedure when performed at different time points may contribute to false resistance in MGIT 96014. Despite the discrepancies observed, the accuracy of MGIT 960 was acceptable (≥92%). Agreement between the methods was found to be high (>0.8).

One limitation in this study was that the status of discrepant isolates was not reconfirmed by INH at 0.4μg/ml concentration. Validation of FR using a higher drug concentration was thought to be superfluous with high accuracy of MGIT 960 and limited discrepancy between phenotypic methods. In an unrelated study by the authors15, existence of intermediate resistance (IR) to INH (data not shown) that could lead to discrepancy between MGIT 960 and conventional methods was found to be minimal in our setting. High level isoniazid resistance (≥5μg/ml) due to mutation in katG gene was observed within the subcontinent15. Hence, with less number of IR to INH, DST by MGIT 960 can be performed at manufacturer's recommended concentration of 0.1 μg/ml in the present clinical setting.

Currently, MGIT 960 being considered the gold standard in liquid culture system and introduced for diagnosis and DST of M. tuberculosis under Revised National TB Control Programme16, laboratory specific assessment of the recommended drug concentrations at regular time intervals is required to eliminate inconsistency and improve reliability.

References

  1. WHO Fact sheet on tuberculosis. October. . Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs104/en/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , , , . Multicenter laboratory evaluation of the MB/BacT Mycobacterium Detection System and the BACTEC MGIT 960 system in comparison with the BACTEC 460TB system for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45:1766-70.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , , , . An integrated approach to rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis and multidrug resistance using liquid culture and molecular methods in Russia. PLoS One. 2009;4:e7129.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , . Evaluation of automated BACTEC MGIT 960 system for testing susceptibility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to four major antituberculous drugs: Comparison with the radiometric BACTEC 460TB method and the agar plate method of proportion. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:607-10.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , , . The Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) is useful for anticipating the resistance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to rifampicin but not to isoniazid. Rev Argent Microbiol. 2001;33:197-202.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , , . Evaluation of BACTEC Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT 960) automated system for drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39:4440-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , . Evaluation of the fully automated BACTEC MGIT 960 system for testing susceptibility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to pyrazinamide, streptomycin, isoniazid, rifampin, and ethambutol and comparison with the radiometric BACTEC 460TB method. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42:1109-14.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , . Evaluation of the BBL MGIT (Mycobacterial growth indicator tube) AST SIRE system for antimycobacterial susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to 4 primary antituberculous drugs. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:82-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , , . Biological and molecular characteristics of Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical isolates with low-level resistance to isoniazid in Japan. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46:2263-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Standard Operating Protocol for Mycobacteriology laboratory. Version 1.0 June. . Chennai: National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis; Available from: http://www.trcchennai.org/pdf/sop.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  11. , . The Union & Antwerp Coordinating SRL. DST proficiency testing rounds in the Supranational Reference Laboratory Network. Available from: http://www.stoptb.org/wg/gli/assets/html/day%201/Van%20Deun%20-,%20SRL%20DST%20profficiency%20testing.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , . Evaluation of the BACTEC MGIT 960 system for drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates compared with the proportion method on solid media. Kekkaku. 2001;76:657-62.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , , , , . Does the MGIT 960 system improve the turnaround times for growth detection and susceptibility testing of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex? J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:2314-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. , , , , . Current perspectives on drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex: the automated nonradiometric systems. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:20-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , , . Molecular analysis of isoniazid-resistant clinical isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from India. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2008;31:71-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. RNTCP response to challenges of drug resistant TB in India. January 2012 (update) Available from: http://www.tbcindia.nic.in/pdfs/RNTCP%20Response%20DR%20TB%20in%20India%20-%20Jan%202012%20update.pdf
    [Google Scholar]

    Fulltext Views
    24

    PDF downloads
    9
    View/Download PDF
    Download Citations
    BibTeX
    RIS
    Show Sections
    Scroll to Top