Evaluation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug susceptibility in clinical specimens from Nigeria using genotype MTBDRplus and MTBDRsl assays

Evaluation of the GenoType MTBDRplus and MTBDRsl for the detection of drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis on isolates from Beijing, China

Background

The incidence of tuberculosis (TB), especially multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) and extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB), continues to increase alarmingly worldwide. Molecular line probe assays (LPAs) are endorsed by the World Health Organization for the fast detection of MDR-TB and XDR-TB. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of LPAs in China.

Methods

We analyzed MDR-TB and XDR-TB in 96 isolates from Beijing by using culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST) and LPAs to compare the detection rate of the two methods.

Results

Compared to phenotypic DST, the GenoType^® MTBDRplus and MTBDRsl, respectively, showed a sensitivity of 98.7% and a specificity of 88.9% for detection of rifampicin resistance, 82.1% and 94.4% for isoniazid, 89.7% and 94.4% for levofloxacin, 60.0% and 98.7% for amikacin/capreomycin, and 57.5% and 98.2% for ethambutol. The sensitivity and specificity of LPAs, respectively, were 80.8% and 100% for MDR-TB and 50.0% and 97.6% for XDR-TB. Mutations in codon S531L of the rpoB gene and S315T1 of the KatG gene were dominated in MDR-TB strains. The most frequently observed mutations were in codon A90V of the gyrA gene, A1401G of the rrs gene, and M306V of the embB gene, according to the MTBDRsl results.

Conclusion

Our study showed that, in combination with phenotypic DST, application of the LPAs might be an efficient and reliable supplementary DST assay for rapid susceptibility screening of MDR-TB and XDR-TB. Using LPAs in countries with high MDR/XDR burden allows for appropriate and timely treatment, which will reduce transmission rates and morbidity, and improve treatment outcomes in patients.

Accuracy of line probe assays for the diagnosis of pulmonary and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Only 25% of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) cases are currently diagnosed. Line probe assays (LPAs) enable rapid drug-susceptibility testing for rifampicin (RIF) and isoniazid (INH) resistance and Mycobacterium tuberculosis detection. Genotype MTBDRplusV1 was WHO-endorsed in 2008 but newer LPAs have since been developed.

This systematic review evaluated three LPAs: Hain Genotype MTBDRplusV1, MTBDRplusV2 and Nipro NTM+MDRTB. Study quality was assessed with QUADAS-2. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were performed for direct and indirect testing. Results for RIF and INH resistance were compared to phenotypic and composite (incorporating sequencing) reference standards. M. tuberculosis detection results were compared to culture.

74 unique studies were included. For RIF resistance (21 225 samples), pooled sensitivity and specificity (with 95% confidence intervals) were 96.7% (95.6–97.5%) and 98.8% (98.2–99.2%). For INH resistance (20 954 samples), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.2% (88.2–91.9%) and 99.2% (98.7–99.5%). Results were similar for direct and indirect testing and across LPAs. Using a composite reference standard, specificity increased marginally. For M. tuberculosis detection (3451 samples), pooled sensitivity was 94% (89.4–99.4%) for smear-positive specimens and 44% (20.2–71.7%) for smear-negative specimens.

In patients with pulmonary TB, LPAs have high sensitivity and specificity for RIF resistance and high specificity and good sensitivity for INH resistance. This meta-analysis provides evidence for policy and practice.

Line probe assays have high accuracy for detection of RIF resistance and INH resistancehttp://ow.ly/USX5305tqFV

GenoType® MTBDRsl assay for resistance to second-line anti-tuberculosis drugs

BACKGROUND

Genotype® MTBDRsl (MTBDRsl) is a rapid DNA-based test for detecting specific mutations associated with resistance to fluoroquinolones and second-line injectable drugs (SLIDs) in Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. MTBDRsl version 2.0 (released in 2015) identifies the mutations detected by version 1.0, as well as additional mutations. The test may be performed on a culture isolate or a patient specimen, which eliminates delays associated with culture. Version 1.0 requires a smear-positive specimen, while version 2.0 may use a smear-positive or -negative specimen. We performed this updated review as part of a World Health Organization process to develop updated guidelines for using MTBDRsl.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl for: 1. fluoroquinolone resistance, 2. SLID resistance, and 3. extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, indirectly on a M. tuberculosis isolate grown from culture or directly on a patient specimen. Participants were people with rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. The role of MTBDRsl would be as the initial test, replacing culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST), for detecting second-line drug resistance.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language restrictions up to 21 September 2015: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; Embase OVID; Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and BIOSIS Previews (all three from Web of Science); LILACS; and SCOPUS; registers for ongoing trials; and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. We reviewed references from included studies and contacted specialists in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included cross-sectional and case-control studies that determined MTBDRsl accuracy against a defined reference standard (culture-based DST, genetic sequencing, or both).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We synthesized data for versions 1.0 and 2.0 separately. We estimated MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity for fluoroquinolone resistance, SLID resistance, and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis when the test was performed indirectly or directly (smear-positive specimen for version 1.0, smear-positive or -negative specimen for version 2.0). We explored the influence on accuracy estimates of individual drugs within a drug class and of different reference standards. We performed most analyses using a bivariate random-effects model with culture-based DST as reference standard.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies. Twenty-six studies evaluated version 1.0, and one study version 2.0. Of 26 studies stating specimen country origin, 15 studies (58%) evaluated patients from low- or middle-income countries. Overall, we considered the studies to be of high methodological quality. However, only three studies (11%) had low risk of bias for the reference standard; these studies used World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended critical concentrations for all drugs in the culture-based DST reference standard. MTBDRsl version 1.0 Fluoroquinolone resistance: indirect testing, MTBDRsl pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 85.6% (79.2% to 90.4%) and 98.5% (95.7% to 99.5%), (19 studies, 2223 participants); direct testing (smear-positive specimen), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86.2% (74.6% to 93.0%) and 98.6% (96.9% to 99.4%), (nine studies, 1771 participants, moderate quality evidence). SLID resistance: indirect testing, MTBDRsl pooled sensitivity and specificity were 76.5% (63.3% to 86.0%) and 99.1% (97.3% to 99.7%), (16 studies, 1921 participants); direct testing (smear-positive specimen), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 87.0% (38.1% to 98.6%) and 99.5% (93.6% to 100.0%), (eight studies, 1639 participants, low quality evidence). Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: indirect testing, MTBDRsl pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.9% (42.9% to 88.8%) and 98.8% (96.1% to 99.6%), (eight studies, 880 participants); direct testing (smear-positive specimen), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 69.4% (38.8% to 89.0%) and 99.4% (95.0% to 99.3%), (six studies, 1420 participants, low quality evidence).Similar to the original Cochrane review, we found no evidence of a significant difference in MTBDRsl version 1.0 accuracy between indirect and direct testing for fluoroquinolone resistance, SLID resistance, and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. MTBDRsl version 2.0 Fluoroquinolone resistance: direct testing, MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity were 97% (83% to 100%) and 98% (93% to 100%), smear-positive specimen; 80% (28% to 99%) and 100% (40% to 100%), smear-negative specimen. SLID resistance: direct testing, MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity were 89% (72% to 98%) and 90% (84% to 95%), smear-positive specimen; 80% (28% to 99%) and 100% (40% to 100%), smear-negative specimen. Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: direct testing, MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity were 79% (49% to 95%) and 97% (93% to 99%), smear-positive specimen; 50% (1% to 99%) and 100% (59% to 100%), smear-negative specimen.We had insufficient data to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity of version 2.0 (smear-positive and -negative specimens) or to compare accuracy of the two versions.A limitation was that most included studies did not consistently use the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended concentrations for drugs in the culture-based DST reference standard.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, MTBDRsl performed on a culture isolate or smear-positive specimen may be useful in detecting second-line drug resistance. MTBDRsl (smear-positive specimen) correctly classified around six in seven people as having fluoroquinolone or SLID resistance, although the sensitivity estimates for SLID resistance varied. The test rarely gave a positive result for people without drug resistance. However, when second-line drug resistance is not detected (MTBDRsl result is negative), conventional DST can still be used to evaluate patients for resistance to the fluoroquinolones or SLIDs.We recommend that future work evaluate MTBDRsl version 2.0, in particular on smear-negative specimens and in different settings to account for different resistance-causing mutations that may vary by strain. Researchers should also consider incorporating WHO-recommended critical concentrations into their culture-based reference standards.

The Second Zambian National Tuberculosis Drug Resistance survey - a comparison of conventional and molecular methods

OBJECTIVE

The prevalence of MDR-TB in Zambia was estimated to be 1.8% in 2001. A second drug resistance survey was conducted in 2008 to determine trends; the use of the Genotype MTBDRplus assay was applied to compare results to the gold standard.

METHOD

A two-stage cluster sampling, with health facilities as primary sampling units. Processed sputum specimens were inoculated on solid media for culture; heat-inactivated bacterial suspensions from sputum samples were tested on a commercial line probe assay for the identification of rifampicin and isoniazid resistance.

RESULTS

A total of 917 patients with TB were enrolled and 883 (96.3%) analysed. A total of 574 (65%) had LJ results and 824 (93.3%) had results from MTBDRplus assay. The median age was 32, and 63.3% were males. MDR-TB according to LJ-based DST was 1.1% (CI 0.1-2.4) whereas according to MDTBDRplus assay was 1.6% (CI 0.6-2.6). Isoniazid monoresistance in new cases was 2.4% (CI 0.613-4.26) based on LJ results and 5.0% (CI 3.2-6.7) based on the MTBDRplus; in retreatment cases, it was 4.4% (CI 0.3-8.6) and 2.40% (CI <0.1-5.1) on LJ and MTBDRplus, respectively. Rifampicin monoresistance in new cases was 0.1% (CI <0.1-0.4) based on LJ and 0.6% (CI 0.01-1.1) based on the MTBDRplus; in retreatment cases, it was 0% (CI 0-3.8) and 1.8% (CI <0.1-4.0) on LJ and MTBDRplus, respectively. There were no XDR-TB cases found and no association between MDR-TB and HIV.

CONCLUSION

There was no increase in MDR-TB prevalence in Zambia from 2001 to 2008; results from the two methods were similar. Molecular methods were quicker and simpler to use.

The diagnostic accuracy of the GenoType(®) MTBDRsl assay for the detection of resistance to second-line anti-tuberculosis drugs

BACKGROUND

Accurate and rapid tests for tuberculosis (TB) drug resistance are critical for improving patient care and decreasing the transmission of drug-resistant TB. Genotype(®)MTBDRsl (MTBDRsl) is the only commercially-available molecular test for detecting resistance in TB to the fluoroquinolones (FQs; ofloxacin, moxifloxacin and levofloxacin) and the second-line injectable drugs (SLIDs; amikacin, kanamycin and capreomycin), which are used to treat patients with multidrug-resistant (MDR-)TB.

OBJECTIVES

To obtain summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl for FQ resistance, SLID resistance and extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB; defined as MDR-TB plus resistance to a FQ and a SLID) when performed (1) indirectly (ie on culture isolates confirmed as TB positive) and (2) directly (ie on smear-positive sputum specimens).To compare summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl for FQ resistance, SLID resistance and XDR-TB by type of testing (indirect versus direct testing).The populations of interest were adults with drug-susceptible TB or drug-resistant TB. The settings of interest were intermediate and central laboratories.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without any language restriction up to 30 January 2014: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Knowledge; MEDION; LILACS; BIOSIS; SCOPUS; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials; the search portal of the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all studies that determined MTBDRsl accuracy against a defined reference standard (culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST), genetic testing or both). We included cross-sectional and diagnostic case-control studies. We excluded unpublished data and conference proceedings.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For each study, two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We performed meta-analyses to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of MTBDRsl for FQ resistance, SLID resistance, and XDR-TB. We explored the influence of different reference standards. We performed the majority of analyses using a bivariate random-effects model against culture-based DST as the reference standard.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 unique studies: 14 studies reported the accuracy of MTBDRsl when done directly, five studies when done indirectly and two studies that did both. Of the 21 studies, 15 studies (71%) were cross-sectional and 11 studies (58%) were located in low-income or middle-income countries. All studies but two were written in English. Nine (43%) of the 21 included studies had a high risk of bias for patient selection. At least half of the studies had low risk of bias for the other QUADAS-2 domains.As a test for FQ resistance measured against culture-based DST, the pooled sensitivity of MTBDRsl when performed indirectly was 83.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78.7% to 86.7%) and the pooled specificity was 97.7% (95% CI 94.3% to 99.1%), respectively (16 studies, 1766 participants; 610 confirmed cases of FQ-resistant TB; moderate quality evidence). When performed directly, the pooled sensitivity was 85.1% (95% CI 71.9% to 92.7%) and the pooled specificity was 98.2% (95% CI 96.8% to 99.0%), respectively (seven studies, 1033 participants; 230 confirmed cases of FQ-resistant TB; moderate quality evidence). For indirect testing for FQ resistance, four (0.2%) of 1766 MTBDRsl results were indeterminate, whereas for direct testing 20 (1.9%) of 1033 were MTBDRsl indeterminate (P < 0.001).As a test for SLID resistance measured against culture-based DST, the pooled sensitivity of MTBDRsl when performed indirectly was 76.9% (95% CI 61.1% to 87.6%) and the pooled specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 97.1% to 99.9%), respectively (14 studies, 1637 participants; 414 confirmed cases of SLID-resistant TB; moderate quality evidence). For amikacin resistance, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 87.9% (95% CI 82.1% to 92.0%) and 99.5% (95% CI 97.5% to 99.9%), respectively. For kanamycin resistance, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 66.9% (95% CI 44.1% to 83.8%) and 98.6% (95% CI 96.1% to 99.5%), respectively. For capreomycin resistance, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 79.5% (95% CI 58.3% to 91.4%) and 95.8% (95% CI 93.4% to 97.3%), respectively. When performed directly, the pooled sensitivity for SLID resistance was 94.4% (95% CI 25.2% to 99.9%) and the pooled specificity was 98.2% (95% CI 88.9% to 99.7%), respectively (six studies, 947 participants; 207 confirmed cases of SLID-resistant TB, 740 SLID susceptible cases of TB; very low quality evidence). For indirect testing for SLID resistance, three (0.4%) of 774 MTBDRsl results were indeterminate, whereas for direct testing 53 (6.1%) of 873 were MTBDRsl indeterminate (P < 0.001).As a test for XDR-TB measured against culture-based DST, the pooled sensitivity of MTBDRsl when performed indirectly was 70.9% (95% CI 42.9% to 88.8%) and the pooled specificity was 98.8% (95% CI 96.1% to 99.6%), respectively (eight studies, 880 participants; 173 confirmed cases of XDR-TB; low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with TB, a positive MTBDRsl result for FQ resistance, SLID resistance, or XDR-TB can be treated with confidence. However, MTBDRsl does not detect approximately one in five cases of FQ-resistant TB, and does not detect approximately one in four cases of SLID-resistant TB. Of the three SLIDs, MTBDRsl has the poorest sensitivity for kanamycin resistance. MTBDRsl will miss between one in four and one in three cases of XDR-TB. The diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl is similar when done using either culture isolates or smear-positive sputum. As the location of the resistance causing mutations can vary on a strain-by-strain basis, further research is required on test accuracy in different settings and, if genetic sequencing is used as a reference standard, it should examine all resistance-determining regions. Given the confidence one can have in a positive result, and the ability of the test to provide results within a matter of days, MTBDRsl may be used as an initial test for second-line drug resistance. However, when the test reports a negative result, clinicians may still wish to carry out conventional testing.

Assessment of the genotype MTBDRplus assay for rifampin and isoniazid resistance detection on sputum samples in Cote d'Ivoire

We conducted an evaluation study on the GenoType MTBDRplus assay's ability to detect mutations conferring resistance to rifampin and isoniazid directly from sputum taken from 120 smear positive pulmonary patients from tuberculosis (TB) centers in Cote d'Ivoire. The sputum was decontaminated by N-acetyl-l-cysteine (NALC) and comparatively analyzed with the MTBDRplus assay version 2.0 and the mycobacterial growth indicator tube (MGIT) 960 automated drug susceptibility testing (MGIT-DST). The Gene-Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB)/rifampicin (RIF) assay was performed for 21 sputa with absence of hybridization for at least one rpoB wild-type probes. Four and seven, respectively, discordant and concordant results were also analyzed. The mutations in the rpoB gene were 21 (17.5%), 20 (16.7%), 7 (5.8%), and 10 (8.3%), respectively, for D516V, H526Y, H526D, and S531L. S315T mutation in katG gene associated or not with mutation in promoter of inhA was detected in 76 (63.3%) of the sputum. Compared to MGIT-DST, the sensitivity and specificity of the MTBDRplus for rifampin resistance detection were 100% (75-100%) and 73.2% (61.3-84%), respectively. For isoniazid resistance detection, the sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 95% (90-‌99) and 95.1% (88.5-100%). Interpretation of 16 sputa without hybridization of rpoB wild-type probe 8 compared to those obtained with MGIT-DST and GeneXpert MTB/RIF was discordant and concordant, respectively, for 11 and 5.