Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology IAMM  | About us |  Subscription |  e-Alerts  | Feedback |  Login   
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 Home | Ahead of Print | Current Issue | Archives | Search | Instructions  
Users Online: 4717 Official Publication of Indian Association of Medical Microbiologists 
  Search
 
  
 ~  Similar in PUBMED
 ~  Search Pubmed for
 ~  Search in Google Scholar for
 ~Related articles
 ~  Article in PDF (589 KB)
 ~  Citation Manager
 ~  Access Statistics
 ~  Reader Comments
 ~  Email Alert *
 ~  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
 ~  Abstract
 ~ Introduction
 ~ Methods
 ~ Results
 ~ Discussion
 ~ Conclusion
 ~  References
 ~  Article Figures
 ~  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2023    
    Printed75    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded153    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
  Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 35  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 568-574
 

Evaluation of genotype MTBDRplus line probe assay in detection of rifampicin and isoniazid resistance in comparison to solid culture drug susceptibility testing in a tertiary care centre of western Uttar Pradesh


1 Department of Microbiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of TB and Respiratory Diseases, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India

Date of Web Publication1-Feb-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Shariq Ahmed
Department of Microbiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh - 202 001, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijmm.IJMM_17_321

Rights and Permissions

 ~ Abstract 

Background: Isoniazid (INH) and rifampicin (Rif) are the key first-line antituberculosis drugs, and resistance to these drugs i.e., multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), is likely to result in treatment failure and poor clinical outcomes. India has the highest burden of TB and MDR-TB in the world, disproportionately high even for India's population. The GenoType® MTBDRplus molecular method allows rapid detection of Rif and INH resistance. Aim: The present study was done to compare the performance of line probe assay test (GenoType® MTBDRplus) with solid culture method for an early diagnosis of MDR-TB. Methods: Totally 1503 sputum samples of MDR-TB suspects were subjected to fluorescent microscopy. Decontamination was done by N-acetyl-L-cysteine and sodium hydroxide method. Fluorescent microscopy-positive samples were subjected to GenoType® MTBDRplus (HAIN Lifescience) assay. Sixty-two random samples were compared with phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST) (1% proportion method) using solid culture method by Lowenstein–Jensen media. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for detection of resistance to Rif were 94.74%, 95.35%, 90% and 97.62% and to INH were 92.00%, 91.89%, 88.46% and 94.44%, respectively, in comparison with the phenotypic DST. Conclusion: GenoType® MTBDRplus has good sensitivity and specificity in detecting MDR-TB cases with a significantly lesser turnaround time as compared to conventional DST method and simultaneous detection of Rif and INH resistance. This technique saves several weeks of time required for culture and DST.


Keywords: Drug resistance, GenoType® MTBDRplus assay, line probe assay, rapid diagnosis of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, tuberculosis


How to cite this article:
Ahmed S, Shukla I, Fatima N, Varshney SK, Shameem M. Evaluation of genotype MTBDRplus line probe assay in detection of rifampicin and isoniazid resistance in comparison to solid culture drug susceptibility testing in a tertiary care centre of western Uttar Pradesh. Indian J Med Microbiol 2017;35:568-74

How to cite this URL:
Ahmed S, Shukla I, Fatima N, Varshney SK, Shameem M. Evaluation of genotype MTBDRplus line probe assay in detection of rifampicin and isoniazid resistance in comparison to solid culture drug susceptibility testing in a tertiary care centre of western Uttar Pradesh. Indian J Med Microbiol [serial online] 2017 [cited 2019 Dec 11];35:568-74. Available from: http://www.ijmm.org/text.asp?2017/35/4/568/224435



 ~ Introduction Top


Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major global health problem. In 2012, an estimated 86 million people developed TB and 1.3 million died from the disease.[1] With a population of around 1.24 billion, India is the largest country in the South East Asian region. It ranks first among the high TB burden countries which contributed 26% of the estimated global incident TB cases in 2012 and also among the 27 multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) high-burden countries worldwide, contributing to 21% of all MDR-TB cases estimated among notified cases.[2] MDR-TB is caused by strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) that are resistant to at least rifampicin (Rif) and isoniazid (INH), the two key drugs in the treatment of the disease. Since 2006, the presence of even more resistant strains of MTB labelled as extensively drug resistant (XDR)-TB has been recognised.[3],[4],[5]

The global threat of MDR-TB to control TB underscores the importance of prompt and rapid identification of such resistant MTB strains. INH and Rif are the key first-line anti-TB drugs, and resistance to these drugs i.e., MDR-TB, is likely to result in treatment failure and poor clinical outcomes.[6],[7] India has the highest burden of TB and MDR-TB in the world, disproportionately high even for India's population.[8]

As in vitro confirmation of resistance to INH and Rif is essential for the diagnosis of MDR-TB, a major reason for the delay in starting MDR-TB treatment is the prolonged time taken by the laboratory to make the diagnosis of drug resistance.[9],[10],[11]

The mean time to detect drug resistance on egg-based Lowenstein–Jenson (L–J) media is around 3–4 months.[12] Even using the more modern broth-based liquid culture systems, culture and drug susceptibility test (DST) results from sputum specimens still take several weeks.[13]

Liquid media-based tests, such as the BACTEC ®, MB/BacT ®, ESP ® and MGIT ® systems, are more rapid, but also more costly and require sophisticated laboratories and trained personnel.[14] However, newly developed molecular-based methods have advantages over conventional phenotypic methods in terms of both accuracy and turnaround time.[15]

The line probe assay (LPA) (MTBDRplus) detects mutations associated with the rpoB gene for Rif resistance, katG genes for high-level INH resistance and the inhA regulatory region gene for low-level INH resistance.[16] In June 2008, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended the use of molecular LPA for the diagnosis of MDR-TB.[17]

The present study was done to compare the performance of LPA test (GenoType ® MTBDRplus assay) with solid culture method among MDR-TB suspects for an early diagnosis of MDR-TB at a tertiary care centre in western Uttar Pradesh.


 ~ Methods Top


Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics and Research Advisory Committee, Faculty of Medicine, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Aligarh. Informed consent was not required in this study since it was a part of routine investigations done in the department.

Study patients

The present study was conducted in Culture and DST Laboratory (Revised National TB Control Programme [RNTCP] certified), Department of Microbiology, J.N. Medical College, AMU, Aligarh, on the sputum samples received of the MDR-TB-suspected patients (according to Programmatic Management of Drug Resistant Tuberculosis guidelines) from the out- and inpatient departments of the hospital and from various TB units in and around Aligarh region from January 2015 to August 2016.

Specimen collection and processing

The patients were advised to collect 4–5 ml of early-morning sputum in a sterilised 50 ml Falcon tube. They were instructed to rinse their mouth with pure water and clean their teeth before collection to avoid contamination with food and other particles. The 2 consecutive days' sputum samples were collected as per the RNTCP criteria.[18]

  1. One spot specimen when the patient first attends the hospital
  2. One next early-morning specimen.


Both the sputum samples were subjected to fluorescent microscopy and cultured on solid L–J medium. The LPA test was done in one of the samples having a higher bacillary load. The sputum specimens were handled in Class II biosafety cabinet and were decontaminated by N-acetyl-L-cysteine and sodium hydroxide (NALC-NaOH) method.[19],[20] Subsequently, the sediments were suspended in 1–1.5 ml sterile phosphate buffer (pH: 6.8), and two bottles of L–J medium were inoculated with each sample. A volume of 500 ml of the processed sample was used for DNA isolation in a screw-capped tube.

Conventional drug susceptibility testing

The DST was carried out in L–J solid media by economic variant of 1% proportion method according to the standard operating procedure of RNTCP.[21] Rif and INH were tested with concentrations of 40 and 0.2 mg/ml, respectively. All isolates were identified as MTB by their slow growth rate, colony morphology, inability to grow on L–J media containing p-nitrobenzoic acid (500 mg/ml) and niacin-positive and catalase-negative tests. Any strain with 1% (the critical proportion) of bacilli resistant to any of the two drugs – Rif and INH – was classified as resistant to that drug.

Line probe assay

The GenoType ® MTBDRplus LPA was performed according to the manufacturer's (Hain Lifescience, Nehren, Germany) instructions. Three steps for LPA test included DNA extraction, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification and reverse hybridisation. These steps were carried out in three separate rooms with restricted access and unidirectional workflow.[20],[22] Sputum specimens were decontaminated using NALC-NaOH. Following suspension of the pellet in phosphate buffer, 500 μl of decontaminated sample was pipetted to a 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube with screw cap. It was centrifuged for 15 min at 10,000 ×g in a centrifuge tube with aerosol-tight rotor. Supernatant was discarded and suspended in 100 μl lysis buffer (A-LYS) using a vortex mixer and then incubated for 5 min at 95°C in a hot air oven or water bath. Then, 100 μl neutralisation buffer (A-NB) was added and vortexed briefly. It was centrifuged for 5 min at 10,000 ×g. Multiplex PCR was performed using 45 μl amplification mix consisting of 10 μl AM-A and 35 μl AM-B. 5 μl DNA template was added in each tube in a separate room and amplification was performed with the final volume of 50 μl using a thermal cycler and amplification protocol provided by Hain Lifescience. Hybridisation was performed in TwinCubator as per instructions provided by the manufacturers. After completion of hybridisation, strips were washed, removed and fixed to GenoType ® MTBDRplus assay worksheet for interpretation.[20],[23]

Interpretation

Each strip of LPA had 27 reaction zones (bands), including six controls (conjugate, amplification, TUB, rpoB, katG and inhA controls), eight rpoB wild-type (WT1–WT8), four mutant probes (rpoB MUT D516V, rpoB MUT H526Y, rpoB MUT H526D and rpoB MUT S531L), one katG wild-type and two mutant probes (katG MUT S315T1 and katG MUT S315T2) and two inhA wild-type and four mutant probes (inhA MUT1 C15T, inhA MUT2 A16G, inhA MUT3A T8C and inhA MUT3B T8A) [Figure 1]. Either missing of wild-type band or the presence of mutant band was taken as an indication of a resistant strain. To give a valid result, all six expected control bands should appear correctly. Otherwise, the result is considered invalid. The turnaround time (hours) was calculated from the collection of samples to the availability of results.[20]
Figure 1: GenoType MTBDRplus strip (Hain Lifescience, Nehren, Germany

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

Data were analysed using MedCalc developed by MedCalc Software (acacialaan 22, 8400 ostend, Belgium). Data were presented as frequency (percentage). Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


 ~ Results Top


A total of 1503 sputum samples of MDR-TB-suspected patients (1088 males and 415 females) were enrolled in the study. All sputum samples were subjected to fluorescent microscopy (Auramine O) and culture. Nine hundred and four fluorescent-positive samples were subjected to LPA. Eight hundred and fifty-six samples showed presence of TUB band but was absent in 48 samples [Table 1].
Table 1: Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex band by line probe assay done on fluorescent microscopy positive samples (n=904)

Click here to view


Testing of all the 1503 samples by culture yielded at least one positive growth for MTB complex (MTBC) in 843 (50.09%) patients. Samples from 611 (40.65%) patients had no growth and in 49 (3.26%) patients the cultures were contaminated [Table 2]. Of the 904 cultures, 800 (88.5%) were MTB, 52 (5.8%) were culture negative, 3 (0.3%) demonstrated were nontubercular mycobacteria (NTM) and the remaining 49 (5.4%) were contaminated [Table 3].
Table 2: Mycobacterial culture examination of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis suspected patients on Lowenstein–Jenson medium (n=1503)

Click here to view
Table 3: Mycobacterium tuberculosis detection by line probe assay versus solid culture in 904 smear positive sputum samples (fluorescent microscopy)

Click here to view


The LPA correctly identified MTB in 796 of 800 MTB culture-positive samples (sensitivity: 99.5%). Four samples were MTB negative (absence of TUB bands). All three sputum specimens having NTM also demonstrated absence of TUB bands on LPA tests (sensitivity: 100%) [Table 3].

The smear examination yielded the following bacillary load: 73 (8.1%) smears were graded as scanty, 440 (48.7%) as 1+, 214 (23.67%) as 2+ and 177 (19.58%) as 3+. There was a significantly higher likelihood of obtaining an interpretable Genotype ® MTBDRplus result from a specimen with a positive smear grade compared to those specimens with a scanty smear grading [Table 4].
Table 4: Association between smear positivity grades and line probe assay test result

Click here to view


Of the 856 samples that were TUB band positive on LPA, 180 (21.03%) samples were found to be resistant to both Rif and INH (MDR Rif + INH). LPA was performed on smear-positive samples. Monoresistance to Rif was detected in 50 (5.84%) and monoresistance to INH was detected in 80 (9.25%) cases. Five hundred and forty-six (63.79%) samples were sensitive to both Rif and INH (Rif + INH) [Table 5].
Table 5: Anti-mycobacterial sensitivity profile of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis suspected patients as detected by line probe assay (n=856)

Click here to view


Of these 856 samples, 62 random cultures were subjected to solid culture DST on L–J medium. Nineteen samples came out to be resistant and 25 were resistant to isoniazid. Seventeen samples were resistant to both Rif and INH. Keeping L–J DST as gold standard test, sensitivity and specificity of Genotype ® MTBDRplus assay for the detection of Rif resistance came out to be 94.74% and 95.35%, respectively. Similarly, PPV and NPV of Genotype ® MTBDRplus assay for the detection of Rif resistance came out to be 90% and 97.62%, respectively [Table 6]. Moreover, for INH resistance, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of Genotype ® MTBDRplus assay came out to be 92.00%, 91.89%, 88.46% and 94.44%, respectively [Table 7].
Table 6: Correlation of rifampicin resistance on Lowenstein–Jenson drug susceptibility testing with line probe assay

Click here to view
Table 7: Correlation of Isoniazid resistance on Lowenstein–Jenson drug susceptibility testing with line probe assay

Click here to view



 ~ Discussion Top


Timely diagnosis and prompt treatment of infectious cases are the only key elements in reducing the spread of MDR-TB. Accurate and early diagnosis of MDR-TB is highly desirable as it interrupts further transmission of the disease and avoids empirical addition of lifesaving drugs and thus amplification of drug resistance and creation of extensively drug-resistant TB. It also avoids unnecessary cost of administration and occurrence of serious side effects of second-line anti-TB drugs in case one is dealing with drug-sensitive MTB strains.[20]

Conventional culture and drug susceptibility testing (DST) on solid media is a time-consuming process and these systems have been supplemented with automated liquid culture systems in many diagnostic laboratories with decreased time to detection and greater sensitivity. However, the time for testing resistance is still about 7–10 days, beginning from the time that a positive culture is obtained.[24],[25] The most rapid results could be achieved by molecular methods including commercial or in-house DNA hybridisation or amplification methods which allow detection of MTB as well as drug resistance in clinical samples within 1–2 days.[16],[26] Early diagnosis of Rif and INH drug-resistant MTB is essential for efficient treatment and control of MDR-TB.

The present study was conducted in a Culture and DST Laboratory (RNTCP certified), and accredited for carrying out LPA in a tertiary care centre in Western Uttar Pradesh. We evaluated the performance of LPA test directly on sputum samples obtained from MDR-TB suspects. Some of these samples were subsequently tested by phenotypic (L–J proportion method) DST and the results were compared. A good concordance between LPA and conventional solid culture DST was observed in our study. LPA showed the advantage of shorter turnaround time as compared to solid DST.

Since LPA can be done directly on the smear-positive samples, and provided valid sensitivity results in contaminated (48/49) and or negative culture result (12/52), it overcomes these limitations of the conventional solid culture methods, hence surpassing the limitations of solid culture DST such as reduced recovery of viable Mycobacteria and contamination translated into better and timely diagnosis of MDR-TB, thus leading to prompt treatment and reduced transmission of MDR-TB.

In the present study, it was seen that 19/73 (26%) invalid results were obtained when the sputum bacillary load was <1+. Hence, it can be said that efficiency of LPA decreases when sputum bacillary load is <1+.

In our study, out of the 856 MTBC-positive samples, MDR were 180 (21.03%), monoresistant Rif were 50 (5.84%), monoresistant INH were 80 (9.35%) and 546 (63.79%) were sensitive to both Rif and INH. findings have now been presented in [Table 8],[Table 9],[Table 10] form mentioning relevant citations. Similar findings were depicted by various authors as shown in [Table 8].
Table 8: Studies showing percentages of MDR, Rif monoresistant, INH resistant, Rif and INH sensitive detected

Click here to view
Table 9: Studies showing sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for the detection of rifampicin resistance

Click here to view
Table 10: Studies showing sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for the detection of isoniazid resistance

Click here to view


In the present study, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for the detection of rifampicin resistance came out to be 94.74%, 95.35%, 90% and 97.62%. These values are within the range of the observations made by the various studies done across India and around the world as shown in [Table 9].

However, for detection of INH resistance, in comparison to the conventional DST, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the MTBDRplus assay were 92%, 91.89%, 88.46% and 94.44%, respectively. Similar observations were seen to be made from various studies across India and around the world as shown in [Table 10].

The results in our study are in concordance with that of other recent studies, which have reported the sensitivity of MTBDRplus assay in detecting Rif resistance varying between 92% and 99% and INH resistance between 73% and 92%.[16],[25],[35],[36] Our results were in agreement with the meta-analysis done by Ling et al.[37]

The study findings suggest that LPA is suitable for routine use in settings where a standardised second-line anti-TB drug regimen is provided to MDR-TB cases and where Rif resistance is also treated with the same standardised MDR-TB regimen.

It is well known that DST of anti-tubercular drugs by conventional methods is difficult due to various technical reasons.[38],[39] In addition, it may take upto 6 weeks to get a phenotypic DST result and during this period the patient may infect his/her contacts. Recent studies have demonstrated the feasibility of the Genotype ® MTBDRplus assay, which was utilised as an effective tool for MDR-TB screening in countries with a high burden of drug-resistant TB and showed a good concordance with phenotypic DST results.[16],[40],[41] However, rapid DST has some drawbacks, generally related to the low concentration of bacilli and possible presence of different type of Mycobacteria (i.e., a mixture of sensitive and resistance clones) in sputum specimen.[32]

A major limitation of molecule genetic detection of drug resistance remains that not all mutations conferring resistance to anti-TB drugs are known. This is especially true in detecting INH resistance and explains the comparatively low sensitivity. Other limitations of Genotype ® MTBDRplus assay include need for appropriate infrastructure, adequately trained and skilled laboratory personnel.


 ~ Conclusion Top


The present study conducted in the geographic region with a high prevalence of TB shows that GenoType ® MTBDRplus has good sensitivity and specificity in detecting MDR-TB cases with a significantly lesser turnaround time as compared to conventional DST method and simultaneous detection of Rif and INH resistance. This technique saves several weeks of time required for culture and DST. Hence, a routine use of LPA can substantially reduce the time to diagnose RIF and INH resistance and can potentially enable earlier commencement of appropriate drug therapy, thereby facilitating prevention of further transmission of drug-resistant strains. In the background of rising drug resistance in MTB, the MTBDRplus assay may be a good tool in the diagnosis and management of MDR-TB. LPAs do not carry the biohazard risk associated with the cultivation of MTB in conventional methods. However, LPAs are not a complete replacement for conventional culture and DST, as MTB culture is still required for smear-negative specimens and bacillary count <1+ on smear examination.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
 ~ References Top

1.
World Health Organisation. Global Tuberculosis Report 2013. World Health Organisation; 2013. Available from: http://www.who.int/htm/tb/2013.11. [Last accessed on 2015 Aug 22].  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
World Health Organisation. Annual Report. Tuberculosis Control in the South East Asia Region. World Health Organisation; 2014. Available from: http://www.searo.who.int/tb/annual_tb_report_2014.pdf?ua=1. [Last accessed on 2015 Aug, May 19].  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Emergence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis with extensive resistance to second-line drugs – Worldwide, 2000-2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2006;55:301-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Gandhi NR, Moll A, Sturm AW, Pawinski R, Govender T, Lalloo U, et al. Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis as a cause of death in patients co-infected with tuberculosis and HIV in a rural area of South Africa. Lancet 2006;368:1575-80.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
World Health Organization. Multidrug and Extensively Drug-Resistant TB (M/XDR-TB): 2010 Global Report on Surveillance and Response. WHO/HTM/TB/2010.3. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. Available from: http://www.apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44286/1/9789241599191_eng.pdf. [Last accessed on 2013 July 15].  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Orenstein EW, Basu S, Shah NS, Andrews JR, Friedland GH, Moll AP, et al. Treatment outcomes among patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2009;9:153-61.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Johnston JC, Shahidi NC, Sadatsafavi M, Fitzgerald JM. Treatment outcomes of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2009;4:e6914.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
National Strategic Plan for Tuberculosis Elimination 2017-2025. Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme, Central TB Division, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health with Family Welfare; March, 2017. Available from: http://www.tbcindia.nic/index1.php?lang=1&level=1&sublinkid=4712&lid=3266. [Last accessed on 2017 Jun 15].  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Narasimooloo R, Ross A. Delay in commencing treatment for MDR TB at a specialised TB treatment centre in KwaZulu-Natal. S Afr Med J 2012;102:360-2.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Schaaf HS, Shean K, Donald PR. Culture confirmed multidrug resistant tuberculosis: Diagnostic delay, clinical features, and outcome. Arch Dis Child 2003;88:1106-11.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Singla R, Sarin R, Khalid UK, Mathuria K, Singla N, Jaiswal A, et al. Seven-year DOTS-plus pilot experience in India: Results, constraints and issues. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2009;13:976-81.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme Guidelines on Programmatic Management of Drug Resistant TB (PMDT) in India; Central TB Division, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi; May, 2012. Available from: http://www.tbcindia.gov.in/WriteReadData/1892s/8320929355Guidelines%20for%20PMDT%20India%20-%20May%202012.pdf. [Last accessed on 2016 Apr 15].  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Srisuwanvilai LO, Monkongdee P, Podewils LJ, Ngamlert K, Pobkeeree V, Puripokai P, et al. Performance of the BACTEC MGIT 960 compared with solid media for detection of Mycobacterium in Bangkok, Thailand. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2008;61:402-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Heifets LB, Cangelosi GA. Drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: A neglected problem at the turn of the century. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 1999;3:564-81.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Genotype MTBDRplusTM, version 1.0 [product insert]. Nehren, Germany: Hain Lifescience, GmbH. Hainlifescience website. Available from http://www.hain-liefscience.de/ tuberculosis. [Last asccesed on 2016 Jul 14].  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Hillemann D, Rüsch-Gerdes S, Richter E. Evaluation of the GenoType MTBDRplus assay for rifampin and isoniazid susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains and clinical specimens. J Clin Microbiol 2007;45:2635-40.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
World Health Organisation: Policy Statement. Molecular Line Probe assays for Rapid Screening at risk of multi drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB); 2008. Available from: http://www.who.int/tb/features_archive/policy_statement.pdf. [Last accessed on 2016 April 15].  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Central TB Division, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. Revised National Tuberculosis Programme, DOTS-Plus Guidelines; 2010. Available from: http://www.health.bih.nic.in/Docs/Guidelines-DOTS_Plus.pdf. [Last accessed on 2015 Aug 22].  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Buyankhishig B, Oyuntuya T, Tserelmaa B, Sarantuya J, Lucero MG, Mitarai S, et al. Rapid molecular testing for multi-resistant tuberculosis in Mongolia: A diagnostic accuracy study. Int J Mycobacteriol 2012;1:40-4.  Back to cited text no. 19
  [Full text]  
20.
Yadav RN, Singh BK, Sharma SK, Sharma R, Soneja M, Sreenivas V, et al. Comparative evaluation of GenoType MTBDRplus line probe assay with solid culture method in early diagnosis of multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) at a tertiary care centre in India. PLoS One 2013;8:e72036.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Central TB Division, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family welfare, Government of India Revised National Tuberculosis Programme, Culture of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and drug susceptibility testing on solid medium. Manual of standard operating procedure; 2009. Available from: http://www.tbcindia.nic/writeReadData/I892s/6995271860Training%20manual%20M%20tuberculosis%20C%20DST.pdf. [Last accessed on 2015 Aug 29].  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Albert H, Bwanga F, Mukkada S, Nyesiga B, Ademun JP, Lukyamuzi G, et al. Rapid screening of MDR-TB using molecular line probe assay is feasible in Uganda. BMC Infect Dis 2010;10:41.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Anek-Vorapong R, Sinthuwattanawibool C, Podewils LJ, McCarthy K, Ngamlert K, Promsarin B, et al. Validation of the GenoType MTBDRplus assay for detection of MDR-TB in a public health laboratory in Thailand. BMC Infect Dis 2010;10:123.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Piersimoni C, Olivieri A, Benacchio L, Scarparo C. Current perspectives on drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex: The automated nonradiometric systems. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:20-8.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Raveendran R, Wattal C, Oberoi JK, Goel N, Datta S, Prasad KJ, et al. Utility of genoType MTBDRplus assay in rapid diagnosis of multidrug resistant tuberculosis at a tertiary care centre in India. Indian J Med Microbiol 2012;30:58-63.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
26.
Watterson SA, Wilson SM, Yates MD, Drobniewski FA. Comparison of three molecular assays for rapid detection of rifampin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol 1998;36:1969-73.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Raizada N, Sachdeva KS, Chauhan DS, Malhotra B, Reddy K, Dave PV, et al. A multi-site validation in India of the line probe assay for the rapid diagnosis of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis directly from sputum specimens. PLoS One 2014;9:e88626.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Sharma BK, Bhandari S, Maharjan B, Shrestha B, Banjara MR. Rapid detection of rifampicin and isoniazid resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis using Genotype MTBDRplus assay in Nepal. Int Sch Res Notices 2014;2014:648294.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Tadesse M, Aragaw D, Dimah B, Efa F, Abdella K, Kebede W, et al. Drug resistance-conferring mutations in Mycobacterium tuberculosis from pulmonary tuberculosis patients in Southwest Ethiopia. Int J Mycobacteriol 2016;5:185-91.  Back to cited text no. 29
  [Full text]  
30.
Thakur C, Kumar V, Gupta AK. Detecting mutation pattern of drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates in Himachal Pradesh using GenoType(®) MTBDRplus assay. Indian J Med Microbiol 2015;33:547-53.  Back to cited text no. 30
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
31.
Ranganath R, Vijay Kumar GS, Javali V, Ranganath R. Line probe assay as a rapid tool for detection of MDRTB. Ann Res Rev Biol 2014;4:246-57.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Maurya AK, Singh AK, Kant S, Umrao J, Kumar M, Kushwaha RA, et al. Use of GenoType ® MTBDRplus assay to assess drug resistance and mutation patterns of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis isolates in Northern India. Indian J Med Microbiol 2013;31:230-6.  Back to cited text no. 32
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
33.
Singhal R, Arora J, Lal P, Balla M, Myneeedu VP, Vehera D. Detection of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis by line probe assay. Indian J Med Res 2012;136:1044-7.  Back to cited text no. 33
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
34.
Kumari R, Tripathi R, Pandey AP, Banerjee T, Sinha P, Anupurba S, et al. Rapid screening of MDR-TB in cases of extra pulmonary tuberculosis using geno type MTBDRplus. PLoS One 2016;11:e0159651.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Lacoma A, Garcia-Sierra N, Prat C, Ruiz-Manzano J, Haba L, Rosés S, et al. GenoType MTBDRplus assay for molecular detection of rifampin and isoniazid resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains and clinical samples. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:3660-7.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Miotto P, Piana F, Cirillo DM, Migliori GB. Genotype MTBDRplus: A further step toward rapid identification of drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:393-4.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Ling DI, Zwerling AA, Pai M. GenoType MTBDR assays for the diagnosis of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: A meta-analysis. Eur Respir J 2008;32:1165-74.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Laszlo A. Tuberculosis: 7. Laboratory aspects of diagnosis. CMAJ 1999;160:1725-9.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Johnson R, Jordaan AM, Pretorius L, Engelke E, van der Spuy G, Kewley C, et al. Ethambutol resistance testing by mutation detection. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2006;10:68-73.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Miotto P, Piana F, Penati V, Canducci F, Migliori GB, Cirillo DM, et al. Use of genotype MTBDR assay for molecular detection of rifampin and isoniazid resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical strains isolated in Italy. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:2485-91.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Barnard M, Albert H, Coetzee G, O'Brien R, Bosman ME. Rapid molecular screening for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in a high-volume public health laboratory in South Africa. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008;177:787-92.  Back to cited text no. 41
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8], [Table 9], [Table 10]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

2004 - Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow

Online since April 2001, new site since 1st August '04