Cargando…

Discordant line probe genotypic testing vs culture-based drug susceptibility phenotypic testing in TB endemic KwaZulu-Natal: Impact on bedside clinical decision making

The recommendations for Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug susceptibility testing include both phenotypic and genotypic methods. This concurrent use of differing testing platforms has created an emerging challenge of discordant results, creating a diagnostic dilemma for the laboratorians as well as att...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mahomed, Sharana, Mlisana, Koleka, Cele, Lindiwe, Naidoo, Kogieleum
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7414011/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32793816
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jctube.2020.100176
_version_ 1783568897683750912
author Mahomed, Sharana
Mlisana, Koleka
Cele, Lindiwe
Naidoo, Kogieleum
author_facet Mahomed, Sharana
Mlisana, Koleka
Cele, Lindiwe
Naidoo, Kogieleum
author_sort Mahomed, Sharana
collection PubMed
description The recommendations for Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug susceptibility testing include both phenotypic and genotypic methods. This concurrent use of differing testing platforms has created an emerging challenge of discordant results, creating a diagnostic dilemma for the laboratorians as well as attending clinicians. We undertook a retrospective study to determine the prevalence of discordant results between the MTBDRplus line probe assay and solid culture-based drug susceptibility testing for rifampicin and isoniazid. The analysis was conducted for the period January 2013 and December 2015 at the Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital. Rifampicin and isoniazid resistance testing data were “paired” on 8273 isolates for culture-based drug susceptibility testing and line probe assay. The latter method showed high sensitivity and specificity of 93% and 95% respectively for isoniazid testing. For rifampicin testing, sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 75%. Overall, discordance was 14.6% for rifampicin and 7.2% for isoniazid. This report is not intended to determine superiority of one method over another. It is merely to show that discordance does exist between different methods of testing. Given the burden of HIV and Tuberculosis in Sub-Saharan Africa, these findings have clinical significance and huge public health implications. Clinicians should understand the limitations of phenotypic testing methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7414011
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74140112020-08-12 Discordant line probe genotypic testing vs culture-based drug susceptibility phenotypic testing in TB endemic KwaZulu-Natal: Impact on bedside clinical decision making Mahomed, Sharana Mlisana, Koleka Cele, Lindiwe Naidoo, Kogieleum J Clin Tuberc Other Mycobact Dis Article The recommendations for Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug susceptibility testing include both phenotypic and genotypic methods. This concurrent use of differing testing platforms has created an emerging challenge of discordant results, creating a diagnostic dilemma for the laboratorians as well as attending clinicians. We undertook a retrospective study to determine the prevalence of discordant results between the MTBDRplus line probe assay and solid culture-based drug susceptibility testing for rifampicin and isoniazid. The analysis was conducted for the period January 2013 and December 2015 at the Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital. Rifampicin and isoniazid resistance testing data were “paired” on 8273 isolates for culture-based drug susceptibility testing and line probe assay. The latter method showed high sensitivity and specificity of 93% and 95% respectively for isoniazid testing. For rifampicin testing, sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 75%. Overall, discordance was 14.6% for rifampicin and 7.2% for isoniazid. This report is not intended to determine superiority of one method over another. It is merely to show that discordance does exist between different methods of testing. Given the burden of HIV and Tuberculosis in Sub-Saharan Africa, these findings have clinical significance and huge public health implications. Clinicians should understand the limitations of phenotypic testing methods. Elsevier 2020-08-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7414011/ /pubmed/32793816 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jctube.2020.100176 Text en © 2020 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Mahomed, Sharana
Mlisana, Koleka
Cele, Lindiwe
Naidoo, Kogieleum
Discordant line probe genotypic testing vs culture-based drug susceptibility phenotypic testing in TB endemic KwaZulu-Natal: Impact on bedside clinical decision making
title Discordant line probe genotypic testing vs culture-based drug susceptibility phenotypic testing in TB endemic KwaZulu-Natal: Impact on bedside clinical decision making
title_full Discordant line probe genotypic testing vs culture-based drug susceptibility phenotypic testing in TB endemic KwaZulu-Natal: Impact on bedside clinical decision making
title_fullStr Discordant line probe genotypic testing vs culture-based drug susceptibility phenotypic testing in TB endemic KwaZulu-Natal: Impact on bedside clinical decision making
title_full_unstemmed Discordant line probe genotypic testing vs culture-based drug susceptibility phenotypic testing in TB endemic KwaZulu-Natal: Impact on bedside clinical decision making
title_short Discordant line probe genotypic testing vs culture-based drug susceptibility phenotypic testing in TB endemic KwaZulu-Natal: Impact on bedside clinical decision making
title_sort discordant line probe genotypic testing vs culture-based drug susceptibility phenotypic testing in tb endemic kwazulu-natal: impact on bedside clinical decision making
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7414011/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32793816
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jctube.2020.100176
work_keys_str_mv AT mahomedsharana discordantlineprobegenotypictestingvsculturebaseddrugsusceptibilityphenotypictestingintbendemickwazulunatalimpactonbedsideclinicaldecisionmaking
AT mlisanakoleka discordantlineprobegenotypictestingvsculturebaseddrugsusceptibilityphenotypictestingintbendemickwazulunatalimpactonbedsideclinicaldecisionmaking
AT celelindiwe discordantlineprobegenotypictestingvsculturebaseddrugsusceptibilityphenotypictestingintbendemickwazulunatalimpactonbedsideclinicaldecisionmaking
AT naidookogieleum discordantlineprobegenotypictestingvsculturebaseddrugsusceptibilityphenotypictestingintbendemickwazulunatalimpactonbedsideclinicaldecisionmaking