Pyrazinamide resistance in rifampicin discordant tuberculosis.

INTRODUCTION: Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains with phenotypically susceptible rpoB mutations (rifampicin discordant) have emerged following implementation of rapid molecular drug resistance testing for tuberculosis. Whilst rifampicin resistance is known to be associated with resistance to other rifamycins (rifapentine and rifabutin) as well as isoniazid and pyrazinamide, rifampicin discordant strains have shown high rates of susceptibility to isoniazid and rifabutin. However, pyrazinamide susceptibly testing results have not been reported.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated pyrazinamide resistance in 80 rifampicin discordant and 25 rifampicin and isoniazid susceptible isolates from KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa using Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube method and sequencing of the pncA. We also compared susceptibility of pyrazinamide with that of isoniazid.
RESULTS: Pyrazinamide resistance was found in 6/80 (7.5%) rifampicin discordant isolates. All pyrazinamide resistant isolates were also resistant to isoniazid and pyrazinamide resistance was found to be associated with isoniazid resistance. No pyrazinamide resistance was found among the isoniazid susceptible isolates.
CONCLUSION: Given the low prevalence of pyrazinamide resistance in rifampicin discordant TB, this anti-TB drug still has a significant role in the treatment of these patients. Performing pyrazinamide susceptibility testing remains a challenge, our findings show that isoniazid susceptible isolates are unlikely to be resistant to pyrazinamide among the discordant TB isolates.

Introduction

The implementation of rapid molecular drug resistance testing for tuberculosis (TB) has greatly improved the diagnosis of drug resistant TB (DR-TB). Although molecular tests have replaced phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST) in the initial diagnosis of DR-TB, the latter remains the gold standard. Consequently, soon after the implementation of molecular tests, reports began to emerge showing M. tuberculosis isolates with rpoB mutations that were phenotypically susceptible to rifampicin (herein referred to as rifampicin discordant) [1,2]. Later, it became apparent that rifampicin discordant isolates were not uncommon, accounting for 10–20% of M. tuberculosis isolates with rpoB mutations [3,4].

The specific mutations responsible for this rifampicin discordance have been identified and proven to be different to those responsible for high level rifampicin resistance (rifampicin concordant). The most commonly described rifampicin discordant mutations include; L430P, D435Y, H445L, H445N and L452P while the most common concordant mutations include S450L, D435V, H445Y and H445D [5-7]. In addition, while it is well known that rifampicin resistance is associated with resistance to other rifamycins (rifabutin and rifapentin) as well as isoniazid and pyrazinamide [5,8-10], recent studies have shown that the majority of rifampicin discordant isolates remain susceptible to rifabutin and a significant amount is still susceptible to isoniazid [11,12]. However, susceptibility of rifampicin discordant isolates against pyrazinamide has not been studied.

Pyrazinamide is a critical drug in the treatment of both drug susceptible and DR-TB. Although the exact mechanism of action is not known, it requires activation to an active form called pyrazinoic acid [13,14]. This activation is performed by the pyrazinamidase enzyme encoded by the pncA gene. Consequently, mutations in the pncA gene are the main cause of resistance against pyrazinamide, accounting for about 90% of resistance [15].

Pyrazinamide is unique to other TB drugs because it only acts under acidic conditions and it targets the slowly multiplying Mycobacteria that persist in these environments including those located inside the macrophages [16]. It was this unique activity that led to the reduction of duration of therapy for drug susceptible TB from nine months to six months. However, the need for an acidic environment has complicated the in vitro susceptibility testing as acidic conditions that are required for testing are also detrimental to Mycobacteria [17]. As a result, pyrazinamide DST is not routinely performed. The rifamycins, isoniazid and pyrazinamide are the crucial drugs in the standard first line TB treatment regimen.

Despite rifampicin discordant M. tuberculosis being a distinct entity from rifampicin resistant (concordant) TB as evidenced by different rpoB mutations and antimicrobial susceptibility profile, these patients continue to be managed the same way. This is due to lack of evidence on alternative treatment regimens for rifampicin discordant TB. The second-line treatment regimen is known to be inferior, longer and more toxic compared to the first line treatment. In this study we examined the susceptibility of rifampicin discordant M. tuberculosis isolates against pyrazinamide in order to determine the appropriate treatment for the affected patients. In addition, we compared the susceptibility of pyrazinamide to that of isoniazid.

Materials and methods

Study design and setting

The study was performed at a central academic South African National Accreditation System (SANAS) accredited TB laboratory of the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) province in South Africa. The laboratory performs all the M. tuberculosis cultures plus both phenotypic and genotypic drug susceptibility testing for routine clinical work of the public sector of the KZN province. Routine M. tuberculosis culture was performed using Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT, Becton Dickinson) while 1% agar proportion method on Middlebrook 7H10 was used for rifampicin, isoniazid, ofloxacin and kanamycin phenotypic DST at a critical concentration of 1μg/mL, 0.2μg/mL, 2μg/mL and 5μg/mL respectively. Genotypic DST for first line anti-TB drugs was done on MGIT positive specimens using the MTBDRplus version 2 assay (Hain Lifescience, Nehren, Germany).

M. tuberculosis isolates

The isolates used in this study were described in our previous report [12]. These were found to be resistant to rifampicin on the Genotype MTBDRplus while susceptible to rifampicin on the phenotypic 1% agar proportion method. In the previous study, 83 rifampicin borderline resistant isolates were investigated. Additionally, 40 time matched susceptible strains (susceptible to the routinely tested anti-TB drugs; isoniazid, rifampicin, ofloxacin and kanamycin) were also examined. In the current study, we performed pyrazinamide susceptibility testing on 80 (of the previous 83) rifampicin borderline resistant isolates as well as in 25 (out of the previous 40) using both phenotypic and genotypic methods.

At the time of the study, the rifampicin critical concentration was still set at 1μg/mL. However, in 2021 the world health organization (WHO) lowered the rifampicin critical concentration to 0.5 μg/mL in an attempt to reduce discordance between phenotypic and molecular assays [18]. When reviewing the rifampicin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the discordant isolates from our previous report against the new critical concentration of 0.5μg/mL, 45.0% (36/80) of the isolates remained rifampicin discordant (MIC ≤ 0.5 μg/mL), while the rest would be regarded as resistant to rifampicin (MIC > 0.5 μg/mL).

Pyrazinamide phenotypic drug susceptibility testing

Phenotypic DST was performed using the MGIT 10% proportion method at a critical concentration of 100 μg/ml as described in the MGIT manual [19]. However, the MGITs were incubated at 37°C and results were read manually daily using the ultraviolet light. Any MGIT that showed fluorescence was considered as positive. Where the MGIT drug containing tube showed growth within 48 hours of the positive growth control, the isolate was considered as resistant. However, when the drug containing tube showed no growth within 48 hours of the growth control tube, the results was read as susceptible [20]. The M. tuberculosis H37Ra (ATCC 25177) was used as a control strain.

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and sequencing of the pncA gene

The deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was extracted using the Quick-DNA™ Miniprep Kit. The pncA gene was amplified using published primers; forward (5 = GGCGTCATGGACCCTATA 3 =) and reverse (5 = GTGAACAACCCGACCCAG 3 =) [21]. The amplified product yielded a full length pncA gene consisting of 561 base pairs (bp), plus 90bp downstream and 30bp upstream. Both positive and negative control were used during the PCR reaction. Sequencing reaction was performed in the ABI 3500 automated DNA sequencer (Applied Biosystems) using the BigDye Terminator v3.1 cycle sequencing kit and forward primers. The sequences were analyzed using the BioEdit sequence alignment editor with M. tuberculosis H37Rv as a wild type reference strain.

Data analysis

The prevalence of pyrazinamide resistance in rifampicin discordant TB was determined by calculating the proportion rifampicin discordant isolates which demonstrated pyrazinamide resistance on genotypic/phenotypic DST method. Fisher’s exact test was used to calculate association between pyrazinamide resistance and isoniazid resistance and the level of significance was set at P < 0.05.

Ethical approval

Ethics clearance was obtained from the University of KwaZulu-Natal Biomedical Research Ethics Council (BE267/18). Because this was retrospective analysis of routine laboratory specimens, no individual patient consent was required.

Results

Among the 80 rifampicin discordant isolates tested for pyrazinamide susceptibility, six (7.5%) were found to be resistant to pyrazinamide (Table 1). Notably, out of these six isolates, only one was among the 36 (2.8%) which remained discordant after applying the new rifampicin critical concentration of 0.5 μg/mL. Of the 80 rifampicin discordant isolates that were tested for pyrazinamide susceptibility, 48 (60%) were susceptible to isoniazid while 32 (40%) were resistant to isoniazid. Importantly, all six pyrazinamide resistant isolates were among those that were also resistant to isoniazid. Overall, pyrazinamide resistance was associated with isoniazid resistance (p = 0.001). All 25 susceptible isolates were also susceptible to pyrazinamide.

Table 1

Pyrazinamide phenotypic and genotypic drugs susceptibility results.

Codon Position	Genotypic DST	PZA MGIT DST	WHO Classification of pncA mutation	INH DST
T47A	R	R	Assoc w R	R
H51P	R	Failed	Assoc w RI	R
P54S	R	R	Not classified	R
S104R	R	R	Assoc w RI	R
65/72 Deletion	R	R	Not classified	R
Failed	Failed	R	Not applicable	R

DST: Drug Susceptibility Testing; PZA: Pyrazinamide; MGIT: Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube; INH: Isoniazid; S: Susceptible; R: Resistant. Assoc w RI: Associated with resistance–interim.

Out of the 80 rifampicin discordant isolates, sequencing of the pncA gene revealed a polymorphism is five isolates. This included one deletion in nucleotide position 214 of one isolate and four unique nonsynonymous mutations (T47A, H51P, P54S and S104R) in other four isolates, but sequencing failed on one phenotypically resistant isolate (Table 1). As indicated in Table 1, three of these mutations (T47A, H51Pand S104R have been classified as associated with resistance according to the recently released WHO catalogue of mutations in M. tuberculosis [22].

Pyrazinamide phenotypic MGIT DST of 80 rifampicin borderline resistant isolates demonstrated resistance in all but one genotypically resistant isolate. This one isolate was difficult to grow and the MGIT DST revealed growth on the drug containing tubes three days before the control tubes on all three repeat occasions. Therefore, the phenotypic test was regarded as unsuccessful (failed). Among the 25 susceptible isolates, no pyrazinamide resistance was detected by both phenotypic MGIT DST as well as sequencing of the pncA gene.

Discussion

In this study, we present for the first time, the prevalence of pyrazinamide resistance among rifampicin discordant M. tuberculosis isolates. We found a 7.5% prevalence of pyrazinamide resistance which is much lower than the reported resistance of 31 to 89% in MDR-TB [23]. Pyrazinamide resistance was associated with isoniazid resistance and no pyrazinamide resistance was found among drug susceptible TB isolates.

The prevalence of pyrazinamide resistance is known to increase with increasing resistance against other TB drugs [23-26]. A systemic review with meta-analysis reported a median prevalence of pyrazinamide resistance of 51% (31% to 89%) in multidrug-resistant TB [23]. In a study conducted by Allana et al in the KZN province, pncA polymorphisms was found in 68% of MDR-TB and 96% of XDR-TB isolates [25]. Additionally, in a TB drug resistance survey conducted in South Africa between 2012–2014, the prevalence of pyrazinamide resistance among MDR-TB cases was 59·1% while it was 13.9 among rifampicin mono-resistant cases [26].

In contrast to drug resistant TB, pyrazinamide resistance in drug susceptible TB is reportedly low, ranging from 0 to 10% [23,26,27]. In the South African drug resistance survey, the overall pyrazinamide resistance was 3.7% [26]. With a resistance rate of 7.5%, our study shows that pyrazinamide resistance among discordant isolates was more in keeping with that of drug susceptible TB. Furthermore, when we only considered those isolates that remained discordant at the new WHO reduced rifampicin critical concentration of 0.5 μg/mL, pyrazinamide resistance was even much lower at 2.8%. This underscores the important role of this drug in the treatment of patients with TB disease caused by rifampicin discordant M. tuberculosis.

The appropriate diagnosis and treatment of rifampicin discordant TB has not been established. As a result, the WHO recommends standard treatment for RR/MDR-TB until new evidence emerges. Although small retrospective observational studies have reported unfavourable treatment outcomes with standard first line therapy, these studies involved patients who were already resistant to other first line drugs especially isoniazid [2,7]. In contrast, other small studies have reported favourable response to first line therapy in patients who were still susceptible to isoniazid [3,28]. In our study, isoniazid susceptibility was associated with pyrazinamide susceptibility. However, this finding still need to be confirmed in larger multicenter studies. Previous studies have shown that rifampicin discordant M. tuberculosis isolates may remain susceptible to rifabutin [11,12,29]. In a recent South African study as many as 33.2% of rpoB polymorphisms, were found to be susceptible to rifabutin, the majority of which belonged to the rifampicin discordant mutations [29]. Given the high susceptibility to pyrazinamide shown in this study, as well as the high susceptibility of these strains to rifabutin and isoniazid published elsewhere, it would seem that a significant proportion of patients with rifampicin discordant TB could benefit from rifabutin based first line therapy [11,12]. There is therefore a need for clinical studies investigating the use of such treatment combinations.

Both genotypic and phenotypic pyrazinamide susceptibility testing have limitations. The MGIT method may overcall resistance due to an inoculum effect. A study by Zhang et al showed that high inoculum sizes caused an increase in pH over time which leads to loss of acid inhibition, allowing growth of organisms in the presence of the drug [17]. It was however reassuring that all the susceptible isolates in our study were susceptible by the phenotypic method and no pncA mutations were detected. Nonetheless, due to the challenges with phenotypic DST, the WHO now recommends genotypic DST for detection of pyrazinamide resistance [30].

Developing a rapid molecular test for pyrazinamide DST has proven difficult as published literature shows lack of hot spot region for pncA gene mutations [25]. Our study findings also confirm this, with four unique mutations and one deletion detected covering a wide range of the pncA gene. These mutations are reported to confer resistance to pyrazinamide [22,31]. The WHO recently endorsed the GenoScholar PZA-TB test (Nipro, Osaka, Japan) which is a reverse hybridization molecular assay for detection of pyrazinamide resistance [32]. This assay has a large number of hybridization probes which cover the whole pncA gene, making it more complex than the currently used reverse hybridization molecular assays. Implementation of this assay may prove to be more challenging high TB endemic regions. Nevertheless, where pyrazinamide susceptibility testing is not feasible, our study shows that pyrazinamide is most likely to be susceptible in rifampicin discordant TB, even more so if isoniazid susceptible as no pyrazinamide resistance was found in these patients.

This study was not without any limitations. We used manual MGIT for incubation and reading of pyrazinamide phenotypic DST instead of the preferred automated method. This highlights the gap in susceptibility testing of pyrazinamide as this test is not offered in many high TB burdened countries including our laboratory. Because we used both phenotypic and genotypic methods to determine the prevalence of pyrazinamide resistance, we were able to mitigate this limitation. Even the one isolate that failed phenotypic DST had a known pyrazinamide resistance conferring mutation [22,31].

Conclusion

The current routinely used rapid molecular tests do not differentiate between high level rifampicin resistant mutations and rifampicin discordant mutations. Although the latter constitutes a smaller fraction of the overall DR-TB, the fact that it has unique rpoB mutations, and has high susceptibility to pyrazinamide, isoniazid and rifabutin suggests that they may require an alternative first line based treatment regimen. However, a clearer understanding of their clinical significance and their relative contribution to clinical outcomes remains a prerequisite to finding appropriate treatment for these patients.

21 Jul 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

11 Aug 2022

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our revised manuscript for further consideration. We appreciate the insightful comments given by the reviewer and we believe that the revised manuscript is of a much better quality. We have addressed each of the comments in the rebuttal letter plus we have also incorporated changes recommended by the reviewer into the manuscript.

Response to reviewer 1 comments:

MAJOR COMMENT

The study investigated pyrazinamide resistance in 80 isolates classified as discordant on rifampicin gDST-pDST results. In these isolates, the pDST of rifampicin was determined using 7H10 medium and a rifampicin critical concentration of 1 ug/ml. In a 2021 technical report on critical concentrations for drug susceptibility testing of isoniazid and the rifamycins (rifampicin, rifabutin and rifapentine), the World Health Organization recommended lowering the CC of rifampicin in 7H10 and MGIT grown cultures to 0.5 ug/ml.

The authors need to elaborate on the implications of this change, if applied to their dataset, on the rationale for the study as stated in the last paragraph of the Introduction. How many of the 80 isolates would still be considered discordant if the revised CC is applied? Do the conclusions for the study hold for isolates regarded as discordant under the revised breakpoint, i.e would the probabilities for association with isoniazid and/or pyrazinamide susceptibility remain unaltered? Are there any high-confidence rpoB mutations in discordant isolates by the revised definition that would predict pyrazinamide susceptibility?

The above additional perspective is to be provided as an expansion of the existing narrative, not necessarily as a replacement of the study results and conclusions as presented.

Response: Thank you for this comment. The WHO lowering of rifampicin critical concentration (CC) actually strengthens our findings of low pyrazinamide prevalence in rifampicin discordant TB. 45% of the discordant isolates remain discordant after the revision of the CC. Of the six pyrazinamide resistant isolates, only one occurred within this group of isolates, the other five are amongst those who would be considered rifampicin resistant (Rifampicin MIC of >0.5 µg/mL. This means pyrazinamide resistance is even lower in rifampicin discordant TB than originally thought. We have included this information in the description of our M. tuberculosis isolates under the methods section as well as the results section. Additionally, we have expanded our discussion to include the effect of the change on our findings. The specific rifampicin mutations were not helpful in predicting pyrazinamide resistance, probably due to small number of PZA resistant isolates.

MINOR COMMENT

The prevalence of pyrazinamide resistance in MDRTB isolates in South Africa is high, as emphasised by the authors. Reference 24 (Ismail, et al. 2018) is quoted in the context of prevalence of rpoB mutations in a national survey. A general perspective on the magnitude of pyrazinamide resistance would be useful in stating the importance of the current work. Does the same reference provide an estimate of the level of pyrazinamide resistance? By comparison, the 2008 paper by Mphahlele, et al., DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00973-08, would be useful, also for insight into the genomics of MDRTB isolates at the time.

Response: We have also expanded our discussion of pyrazinamide resistance to include this information (paragraph 3 on discussion). Although pyrazinamide resistance is high among drug resistant TB isolates in South Africa, it is much lower in drug susceptible TB. In Ismail’s paper, the overall pyrazinamide resistance was only 3.7%.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments_Plos One 2022.docx

Click here for additional data file.

2 Sep 2022

Pyrazinamide resistance in rifampicin discordant tuberculosis

PONE-D-22-16671R1

Dear Dr. Mvelase ,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Frederick Quinn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have responded positively to previous recommendations, especially as far as the Major comment raised is concerned. The manuscript now contains additional considerations of the study outcome in the light of recent changes in international recommendations for the rifampicin breakpoint in liquid media. Minor comments by the reviewer have also been adequately addressed. There are no additional clarifications or amendments required.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

12 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-16671R1

Pyrazinamide resistance in rifampicin discordant tuberculosis

Dear Dr. Mvelase:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Frederick Quinn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE