OBJECTIVE: To summarize, using meta-analysis, the accuracy of bacteriophage-based assays for the detection of rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. METHODS: By searching multiple databases and sources we identified a total of 21 studies eligible for meta-analysis. Of these, 14 studies used phage amplification assays (including eight studies on the commercial FASTPlaque-TB kits), and seven used luciferase reporter phage (LRP) assays. Sensitivity, specificity, and agreement between phage assay and reference standard (e.g. agar proportion method or BACTEC 460) results were the main outcomes of interest. RESULTS: When performed on culture isolates (N=19 studies), phage assays appear to have relatively high sensitivity and specificity. Eleven of 19 (58%) studies reported sensitivity and specificity estimates > or =95%, and 13 of 19 (68%) studies reported > or =95% agreement with reference standard results. Specificity estimates were slightly lower and more variable than sensitivity; 5 of 19 (26%) studies reported specificity <90%. Only two studies performed phage assays directly on sputum specimens; although one study reported sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 99%, respectively, another reported sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 73%. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is largely restricted to the use of phage assays for the detection of rifampicin resistance in culture isolates. When used on culture isolates, these assays appear to have high sensitivity, but variable and slightly lower specificity. In contrast, evidence is lacking on the accuracy of these assays when they are directly applied to sputum specimens. If phage-based assays can be directly used on clinical specimens and if they are shown to have high accuracy, they have the potential to improve the diagnosis of MDR-TB. However, before phage assays can be successfully used in routine practice, several concerns have to be addressed, including unexplained false positives in some studies, potential for contamination and indeterminate results.
OBJECTIVE: To summarize, using meta-analysis, the accuracy of bacteriophage-based assays for the detection of rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. METHODS: By searching multiple databases and sources we identified a total of 21 studies eligible for meta-analysis. Of these, 14 studies used phage amplification assays (including eight studies on the commercial FASTPlaque-TB kits), and seven used luciferase reporter phage (LRP) assays. Sensitivity, specificity, and agreement between phage assay and reference standard (e.g. agar proportion method or BACTEC 460) results were the main outcomes of interest. RESULTS: When performed on culture isolates (N=19 studies), phage assays appear to have relatively high sensitivity and specificity. Eleven of 19 (58%) studies reported sensitivity and specificity estimates > or =95%, and 13 of 19 (68%) studies reported > or =95% agreement with reference standard results. Specificity estimates were slightly lower and more variable than sensitivity; 5 of 19 (26%) studies reported specificity <90%. Only two studies performed phage assays directly on sputum specimens; although one study reported sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 99%, respectively, another reported sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 73%. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is largely restricted to the use of phage assays for the detection of rifampicin resistance in culture isolates. When used on culture isolates, these assays appear to have high sensitivity, but variable and slightly lower specificity. In contrast, evidence is lacking on the accuracy of these assays when they are directly applied to sputum specimens. If phage-based assays can be directly used on clinical specimens and if they are shown to have high accuracy, they have the potential to improve the diagnosis of MDR-TB. However, before phage assays can be successfully used in routine practice, several concerns have to be addressed, including unexplained false positives in some studies, potential for contamination and indeterminate results.
Authors: Giovanni Battista Migliori; Alberto Matteelli; Daniela Cirillo; Madhukar Pai Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 2.471
Authors: Linda M Parsons; Akos Somoskövi; Cristina Gutierrez; Evan Lee; C N Paramasivan; Alash'le Abimiku; Steven Spector; Giorgio Roscigno; John Nkengasong Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Nuria Andreu; Andrea Zelmer; Taryn Fletcher; Paul T Elkington; Theresa H Ward; Jorge Ripoll; Tanya Parish; Gregory J Bancroft; Ulrich Schaible; Brian D Robertson; Siouxsie Wiles Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-05-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sanjay Basu; Jason R Andrews; Eric M Poolman; Neel R Gandhi; N Sarita Shah; Anthony Moll; Prashini Moodley; Alison P Galvani; Gerald H Friedland Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-10-27 Impact factor: 79.321