Discordance between genotypic and phenotypic methods for the detection of rifampicin and isoniazid resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis and the correlation with patient treatment outcomes

Abstract

Background

Accurate drug susceptibility testing (DST) of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is essential for proper patient management. We investigated discordance between genotypic (Xpert MTB/RIF and MTBDRplus) and phenotypic (MGIT 960) methods for the detection of rifampicin (RIF) and isoniazid (INH) resistant MTB and its correlation with patient treatment outcomes in Jimma, Southwest Oromia, Ethiopia.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on 57 stored MTB isolates with known Xpert RIF resistance status (45 RIF resistant and 12 RIF susceptible) at Jimma University Mycobacteriology Research Center from November 2, 2021, to December 28, 2022. We did MTBDRplus and phenotypic DST (using the Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) system). The Xpert and MTBDRplus results were compared using phenotypic DST as a reference standard method. The treatment outcome was determined as per national guideline. The discordance between the genotypic and phenotypic DST was calculated using GraphPad software.

Results

Among the 57 MTB isolates, six (10.5 %) had discordant results between the two DST methods. Xpert yielded five discordant results for RIF when compared with phenotypic DST (kappa coefficient (κ) = 0.76, 95 % confidence interval 0.56–0.96). The MTBDRplus compared with phenotypic DST gave three discordant results for RIF (κ = 0.86, 95 % confidence interval 0.71–1.00) and three for INH (κ = 0.86, 95 % confidence interval 0.70–1.00). Compared with Xpert, MTBDRplus yielded lower discordance with phenotypic DST for RIF. Out of six patients with discordant results, three had unfavorable outcomes while the other three were cured. Of the three patients with unfavorable outcomes, only one patient has received an inappropriate treatment regimen. There was no correlation between unfavorable outcomes and incorrect treatment regimens due to discordant results (Χ² = 0.404; P = 0.525).

Conclusions

Discordance between genotypic and phenotypic DST for RIF or INH occurred in 10.5 % of isolates. Only one patient with discordant results has received an inappropriate treatment regimen, resulting in an unfavorable outcome. The impact of parallel use of rapid molecular assay with phenotypic DST on patient treatment outcomes requires further study.