| Literature DB >> 23186045 |
Chamila P Adikaram1, Jennifer Perera, Sandya S Wijesundera.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) is a disease of poverty that contributes significantly to ill-health in developing countries. Drug resistant TB is a major challenge to disease control. Early diagnosis and rapid determination of drug sensitivity is of paramount importance in eradication of TB. Although automated liquid culture based methods are available for rapid detection of drug resistance, the high cost of these tests prevent them from being used routinely in low resource settings. This study compares two phenotypic methods, the manual Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) and the Nitrate Reductase Assay (NRA) in liquid medium, with the agar proportion method (APM), the gold standard for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23186045 PMCID: PMC3538674 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-12-326
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Figure 1Standard colour series for nitrate reductase assay (WHO, laboratory services in tuberculosis control culture part iii). Colour range from +5 to +3 was considered as positive.
Figure 2An example of a test result of an isolate tested using NRA. C-Rifampicin free control, D-Rifampicin containing medium, S1- Rifampicin susceptible strain of M. tuberculosis, S2- Rifampicin resistant strain of M. tuberculosis.
Pattern of Individual strains (n=31) showing resistance to rifampicin with the DST methods used in the study
| C4, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C20, C73, C83, C86, C88, C115, M60, M127, M15, C27, C22 C23,C163, C254 C150, C135, C110 | APM, MGIT and NRA |
| (n=23) | |
| M9, M33 | APM and MGIT |
| (n=2) | |
| PCR 88,PCR 57 | Only APM |
| (n=2) | |
| C120 | Only MGIT |
| (n=1) | |
| M46 , C25, M22 | Only NRA |
| (n=3) |
Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio for NRA compared to APM (n=373)
| Resistant (27) | 23 | 4 | 85 | | 98 | 0.15 |
| Susceptible (346) | 3 | 343 | 99 | |||
Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio for the MGIT method compared to APM (n=373)
| Resistant (27) | 25 | 2 | 93 | | 167 | 0.04 |
| Susceptible (346) | 1 | 345 | 100 | |||