| Literature DB >> 28249999 |
Neesha Rockwood1,2, Justyna Wojno3,4, Yonas Ghebrekristos3,4, Mark P Nicol2,3,4, Graeme Meintjes5,2,6, Robert J Wilkinson5,2,6,7.
Abstract
The utility of a line probe assay (Genotype MTBDRplus) performed directly on 2-month sputa to monitor tuberculosis treatment response is unknown. We assessed if direct testing of 2-month sputa with MTBDRplus can predict 2-month culture conversion and long-term treatment outcome. Xpert MTB/RIF-confirmed rifampin-susceptible tuberculosis cases were recruited at tuberculosis diagnosis and followed up at 2 and 5 to 6 months. MTBDRplus was performed directly on 2-month sputa and on all positive cultured isolates at 2 and 5 to 6 months. We also investigated the association of a positive direct MTBDRplus at 2 months with subsequent unsuccessful tuberculosis treatment outcome (failure/death during treatment or subsequent disease recurrence). A total of 279 patients (62% of whom were HIV-1 coinfected) were recruited. Direct MTBDRplus at 2 months had a sensitivity of 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65 to 87) and specificity of 80% (95% CI, 74 to 84) to predict culture positivity at 2 months with a high negative predictive value of 93% (95% CI, 89 to 96). Inconclusive genotypic susceptibility results for both rifampin and isoniazid were seen in 26% of MTBDRplus tests performed directly on sputum. Compared to a reference of MTBDRplus performed on positive cultures, the false-positive resistance rate for direct testing of MTBDRplus on sputa was 4% for rifampin and 2% for isoniazid. While a positive 2-month smear was not significantly associated with an unsuccessful treatment outcome (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.69; 95% CI, 0.88 to 8.21), a positive direct MTBDRplus at 2 months was associated with an unsuccessful outcome (aOR 2.87; 95% CI, 1.11 to 7.42). There is moderate utility of direct 2-month MTBDRplus to predict culture conversion at 2 months and also to predict an unfavorable outcome.Entities:
Keywords: bacterial biomarker; drug resistance; line probe assay; treatment outcome; tuberculosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28249999 PMCID: PMC5405268 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00025-17
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Microbiol ISSN: 0095-1137 Impact factor: 5.948
FIG 2Study outcomes. #, 17 patients did not produce sputa at 2 months, 2 died before follow-up, and 8 produced only 1 sputum, which was erroneously used only for culture; *, 1 LTFU (lost to follow-up) participant had a positive MTBDRplus result, and 11 LTFU participants had a negative MTBDRplus at 2 months; **, unsuccessful outcomes (n = 21); ***, 1 case acquired isoniazid resistance, and 1 case acquired rifampin resistance.
Utility of MTBDRplus directly on 2-month sputa to detect 2-month culture positivity
| Assay characteristic | No. for MTBDR | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| All ( | HIV infected ( | HIV uninfected ( | |
| Sensitivity | 45/58 (78, 65–87) | 23/30 (77, 58–90) | 22/28 (79, 59–92) |
| Specificity | 177/221 (80, 74–85) | 118/142 (83, 76–89) | 59/79 (75, 64–84) |
| Positive predictive value | 45/89 (51, 40–61) | 23/47 (49, 34–64) | 22/42 (52, 36–58) |
| Negative predictive value | 177/190 (93, 89–96) | 118/125 (94, 89–98) | 59/65 (90, 81–97) |
Comparison of characteristics of direct MTBDRplus assay using 2-month sputa (for predicting 2-month culture conversion) and of reference method (liquid culture in MGIT), with stratification of the cohort by HIV-1 serostatus to assess the effect of HIV-1 serostatus on the utility of the test.
Direct MTBDRplus results at 2 months stratified by HIV-1 serostatus, baseline smear grade, and retreatment status
| Direct MTBDR | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. (%) of patients: | No. (%) of patients with baseline smear grade: | No. (%) of patients who were: | ||||||
| Positive for HIV-1 infection (total | Negative for HIV-1 infection (total | Negative/scanty (total | 1+ to 3+ (total | New (total | In retreatment (total | |||
| 47 (27) | 42 (39) | 0.04 | 27 (20) | 62 (43) | <0.01 | 53 (28) | 36 (40) | 0.04 |
Utility of MTBDRplus directly on 2-month sputum to detect acquired drug resistance: inconclusive results
| MTBDR | No. (%) of results deemed positive (of a total of 89 samples) | No. (%) restricted to confirmatory positive culture |
|---|---|---|
| Inconclusive INH genotypic susceptibility result | 23 (26) | 4 (7) |
| Inconclusive RIF genotypic susceptibility result | 23 (26) | 9 (16) |
INH, isoniazid; RIF, rifampin.
All positive cultures had confirmed rifampin and isoniazid susceptibilities.
Utility of MTBDRplus directly on 2-month sputum to detect acquired drug resistance: false-positive results
| MTBDR | No. (%) of samples (total | Repeat direct MTBDR |
|---|---|---|
| False-positive isoniazid resistance | 6 (2) | Result was negative for MTB complex in 4/6 cases and isoniazid susceptible in 2/6 cases |
| False-positive rifampin resistance | 11 (4) | Result was negative for MTB complex in 7/11 cases and rifampin susceptible in 4/11 cases |
Compared with MTBDRplus and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing performed on culture if flagged positive. Only 3 patients (of 11 with false-positive rifampin with or without isoniazid resistance) were subsequently culture positive.
On archived sputa in cases of suspected false-positive resistance.
FIG 1Interpretation of MTBDRplus results. (A) Positive for M. tuberculosis complex (presence of TUB band while in the presence of both a conjugate control [CC] and an amplification control [AC]), RIF/INH susceptible (presence of all wild-type bands, absence of all mutation bands). (B) Positive for M. tuberculosis complex (presence of TUB band while in the presence of both a CC and an AC), RIF/INH resistant (absence of wild-type band rpoBWT8, presence of mutation band rpoBMUT3; absence of wild-type band inhAWT1 and presence of mutation band inhAMUT1). (C) Positive for M. tuberculosis complex (presence of TUB band while in the presence of both a CC and an AC), RIF heteroresistant, INH heteroresistant (presence of all wild-type bands; presence of mutation band rpoBMUT3; presence of mutation band inhAMUT1). (D) Positive for M. tuberculosis complex (presence of TUB band while in the presence of both a CC and an AC), inconclusive RIF and INH susceptibility (inconclusive because missing rpoB, inhA, and katG locus control regions [compared with amplification control] and numerous faint/missing wild-type bands).