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. 12 April 2019 No update planned Other The CIDG anticipates this may be updated if policymakers consider this a priority. All eligible published studies found in the last search (21 Sep, 2015) were included.