Synergy of Xpert (MTB/RIF) and Line probe assay for detection of rifampicin resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Shahida Hussain, Sikander Sultan, Saba Riaz, Hajra Hussain, Hasnain Javed, Rabia Mazhar
{"title":"Synergy of Xpert (MTB/RIF) and Line probe assay for detection of rifampicin resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.","authors":"Shahida Hussain, Sikander Sultan, Saba Riaz, Hajra Hussain, Hasnain Javed, Rabia Mazhar","doi":"10.3855/jidc.18945","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Early diagnosis and successful treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) demands rapid, precise, and consistent diagnostic methods to minimise the development of resistance. Therefore, this comparative study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Xpert (MTB/RIF) and Line probe assay (LPA) for detecting drug-resistant TB.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This study comprised 389 (279 pulmonary and 110 extrapulmonary) samples from patients suspected of having TB. All samples were subjected to Xpert (MTB/RIF), LPA, solid culture, and drug-susceptibility testing. Out of 320 samples, only 180 culture (gold standard) positive were included in the final evaluation. The diagnostic characteristics for methods used were determined by calculating diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. The agreement between all methods was determined by calculating the kappa coefficient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity and specificity for Xpert (MTB/RIF) for detecting TB were 88.5% and 96.4%, respectively, against the solid culture. On the other hand, LPA showed sensitivity and specificity at 94.3% and 100%, respectively. Xpert (MTB/RIF) showed moderate agreement (kappa 0.65, p < 0.01) - (73.3% sensitivity; 97.6% specificity) for the detection of rifampicin resistance. However, LPA achieved better diagnostic accuracy (kappa 0.80, p < 0.01) - (84.6% sensitivity; 98.4% specificity) against drug-resistant TB.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Xpert (MTB/RIF) and LPA have outstanding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity against RIF resistance with a shorter turnaround time, which could result in a substantial therapeutic outcome. Our findings showed LPA superiority over Xpert (MTB/RIF) for drug resistance. However, due to operational challenges, the requirement of technical expertise and infrastructure issues, LPA cannot be used as point-of-care testing in resource-limited countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":49160,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries","volume":"18 8","pages":"1241-1248"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.18945","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Early diagnosis and successful treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) demands rapid, precise, and consistent diagnostic methods to minimise the development of resistance. Therefore, this comparative study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Xpert (MTB/RIF) and Line probe assay (LPA) for detecting drug-resistant TB.

Methodology: This study comprised 389 (279 pulmonary and 110 extrapulmonary) samples from patients suspected of having TB. All samples were subjected to Xpert (MTB/RIF), LPA, solid culture, and drug-susceptibility testing. Out of 320 samples, only 180 culture (gold standard) positive were included in the final evaluation. The diagnostic characteristics for methods used were determined by calculating diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. The agreement between all methods was determined by calculating the kappa coefficient.

Results: The sensitivity and specificity for Xpert (MTB/RIF) for detecting TB were 88.5% and 96.4%, respectively, against the solid culture. On the other hand, LPA showed sensitivity and specificity at 94.3% and 100%, respectively. Xpert (MTB/RIF) showed moderate agreement (kappa 0.65, p < 0.01) - (73.3% sensitivity; 97.6% specificity) for the detection of rifampicin resistance. However, LPA achieved better diagnostic accuracy (kappa 0.80, p < 0.01) - (84.6% sensitivity; 98.4% specificity) against drug-resistant TB.

Conclusions: Xpert (MTB/RIF) and LPA have outstanding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity against RIF resistance with a shorter turnaround time, which could result in a substantial therapeutic outcome. Our findings showed LPA superiority over Xpert (MTB/RIF) for drug resistance. However, due to operational challenges, the requirement of technical expertise and infrastructure issues, LPA cannot be used as point-of-care testing in resource-limited countries.

Xpert(MTB/RIF)和线性探针测定法在检测结核分枝杆菌的利福平耐药菌株方面的协同作用。
导言:耐药性结核病(TB)的早期诊断和成功治疗需要快速、精确和一致的诊断方法,以最大限度地减少耐药性的产生。因此,本比较研究旨在评估 Xpert(MTB/RIF)和Line probe assay(LPA)检测耐药结核病的诊断性能:本研究包括 389 份疑似肺结核患者样本(279 份肺部样本和 110 份肺部外样本)。所有样本均接受了 Xpert (MTB/RIF)、LPA、固体培养和药敏试验。在 320 份样本中,只有 180 份培养(金标准)阳性样本被纳入最终评估。通过计算诊断灵敏度、特异性和预测值,确定了所用方法的诊断特征。所有方法之间的一致性通过计算卡帕系数来确定:与固体培养相比,Xpert(MTB/RIF)检测结核病的灵敏度和特异性分别为 88.5%和 96.4%。而 LPA 的灵敏度和特异性分别为 94.3% 和 100%。Xpert(MTB/RIF)在检测利福平耐药性方面显示出中等程度的一致性(kappa 0.65,p < 0.01)--(灵敏度为 73.3%;特异度为 97.6%)。然而,LPA 的诊断准确性更高(kappa 0.80,p < 0.01):Xpert (MTB/RIF)和 LPA 对利福平耐药性的诊断灵敏度和特异性都很高,而且周转时间更短,这可能会带来显著的治疗效果。我们的研究结果表明,在耐药性方面,LPA 优于 Xpert(MTB/RIF)。然而,由于操作上的挑战、对专业技术的要求以及基础设施问题,LPA 无法在资源有限的国家用作护理点检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
239
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries (JIDC) is an international journal, intended for the publication of scientific articles from Developing Countries by scientists from Developing Countries. JIDC is an independent, on-line publication with an international editorial board. JIDC is open access with no cost to view or download articles and reasonable cost for publication of research artcles, making JIDC easily availiable to scientists from resource restricted regions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信