Evaluation of GeneXpert MTB/RIF system performances in the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Diagnostic Tests, Routine
/ methods
Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial
Female
Genotype
Humans
Incidence
Male
Microscopy
Middle Aged
Molecular Diagnostic Techniques
/ methods
Morocco
/ epidemiology
Mycobacterium tuberculosis
/ genetics
Retrospective Studies
Rifampin
/ adverse effects
Sensitivity and Specificity
Tuberculosis
/ diagnosis
Young Adult
Extra-pulmonary tuberculosis
Molecular diagnostic techniques
Morocco
Multidrug-resistance
Tuberculosis
Journal
BMC infectious diseases
ISSN: 1471-2334
Titre abrégé: BMC Infect Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Dec 2019
19 Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
25
07
2019
accepted:
08
12
2019
entrez:
21
12
2019
pubmed:
21
12
2019
medline:
25
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Tuberculosis represents a serious public health problem and a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge worldwide. Molecular diagnostic techniques are crucial in the World Health Organization's new tuberculosis control strategy. This study aims to evaluate the performance of GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid Sunnyvale, CA, United States) in diagnosis of extra-pulmonary tuberculosis then compare it's performance in detecting Rifampicin resistance to GenoType MTBDRplus (HAIN Life Sciences, Nehren, Germany). Samples from pulmonary and/or extra-pulmonary origins were analysed in a 21 months retrospective study. Samples were sent to the bacteriology laboratory for Mycobacterium tuberculosis detection using conventional bacteriological and molecular methods (GeneXpert MTB/RIF and MTBDRplus). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the stained smear and GeneXpert according to culture (Gold Standard) as well as for GeneXpert MTB/RIF in both negative and positive microscopy tuberculosis cases. Data's statistical analysis was performed with SPSS13.0 software. Seven hundred fourteen patients' samples were analysed; the average age was 47.21 ± 19.98 years with a male predominance (66.4%). Out of 714 samples: 285 were from pulmonary and 429 were from extra-pulmonary origins. The positivity rates for microscopy, GeneXpert MTB/RIF and culture were 12.88, 20.59 and 15.82%, respectively. These rates were 18.9, 23.85 and 20.35% for pulmonary samples and 9.71, 18.41 and 12.82% for extra-pulmonary samples, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of GeneXpert MTB/RIF were almost the same in both pulmonary and extra-pulmonary samples (78.2 and 90.4%) and (79,3 and 90.3%) respectively. Rifampicin resistance rate found by GeneXpert MTB/RIF was 0.84%. Comparison of Rifampicin resistance obtained by GeneXpert MTB/RIF and Genotype MTBDRplus, showed 100% agreement between the two techniques for studied samples. This confirms GeneXpert MTB/RIF advantage for tuberculosis diagnosis, particularly extra-pulmonary tuberculosis with negatively stained smear. The performance of GeneXpert and Genotype MTBDRplus are similar in detection of Rifampicin resistance. However, variability of detection performance according to tuberculosis endemicity deserves more attention in the choice of screening techniques of Rifampicin resistance, hence the interest of conducting comparative studies of detection performance under low and medium endemicity on large samples of tuberculosis populations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Tuberculosis represents a serious public health problem and a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge worldwide. Molecular diagnostic techniques are crucial in the World Health Organization's new tuberculosis control strategy. This study aims to evaluate the performance of GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid Sunnyvale, CA, United States) in diagnosis of extra-pulmonary tuberculosis then compare it's performance in detecting Rifampicin resistance to GenoType MTBDRplus (HAIN Life Sciences, Nehren, Germany).
METHODS
METHODS
Samples from pulmonary and/or extra-pulmonary origins were analysed in a 21 months retrospective study. Samples were sent to the bacteriology laboratory for Mycobacterium tuberculosis detection using conventional bacteriological and molecular methods (GeneXpert MTB/RIF and MTBDRplus). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the stained smear and GeneXpert according to culture (Gold Standard) as well as for GeneXpert MTB/RIF in both negative and positive microscopy tuberculosis cases. Data's statistical analysis was performed with SPSS13.0 software.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Seven hundred fourteen patients' samples were analysed; the average age was 47.21 ± 19.98 years with a male predominance (66.4%). Out of 714 samples: 285 were from pulmonary and 429 were from extra-pulmonary origins. The positivity rates for microscopy, GeneXpert MTB/RIF and culture were 12.88, 20.59 and 15.82%, respectively. These rates were 18.9, 23.85 and 20.35% for pulmonary samples and 9.71, 18.41 and 12.82% for extra-pulmonary samples, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of GeneXpert MTB/RIF were almost the same in both pulmonary and extra-pulmonary samples (78.2 and 90.4%) and (79,3 and 90.3%) respectively. Rifampicin resistance rate found by GeneXpert MTB/RIF was 0.84%. Comparison of Rifampicin resistance obtained by GeneXpert MTB/RIF and Genotype MTBDRplus, showed 100% agreement between the two techniques for studied samples.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This confirms GeneXpert MTB/RIF advantage for tuberculosis diagnosis, particularly extra-pulmonary tuberculosis with negatively stained smear. The performance of GeneXpert and Genotype MTBDRplus are similar in detection of Rifampicin resistance. However, variability of detection performance according to tuberculosis endemicity deserves more attention in the choice of screening techniques of Rifampicin resistance, hence the interest of conducting comparative studies of detection performance under low and medium endemicity on large samples of tuberculosis populations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31856744
doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-4687-7
pii: 10.1186/s12879-019-4687-7
pmc: PMC6924055
doi:
Substances chimiques
Rifampin
VJT6J7R4TR
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1069Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 21;(1):CD009593
pubmed: 24448973
J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Mar;49(3):772-6
pubmed: 21177899
J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Mar;44(3):688-92
pubmed: 16517840
N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 9;363(11):1005-15
pubmed: 20825313
Rev Med Interne. 2014 Dec;35(12):794-800
pubmed: 25112804
J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2018 Mar;12:63-67
pubmed: 28899805
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 07;11(4):e0152694
pubmed: 27054344
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Jul;52(7):2422-9
pubmed: 24789181
Tuberc Respir Dis (Seoul). 2015 Apr;78(2):47-55
pubmed: 25861336
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012 Dec;56(12):6080-7
pubmed: 23006760
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 14;12(7):e0180725
pubmed: 28708844
BMC Infect Dis. 2015 Nov 09;15:508
pubmed: 26553046
Pak J Med Sci. 2015 Jan-Feb;31(1):105-10
pubmed: 25878624
mBio. 2017 Aug 29;8(4):
pubmed: 28851844
Mikrobiyol Bul. 2014 Apr;48(2):223-32
pubmed: 24819260
J Int Med Res. 2017 Apr;45(2):816-822
pubmed: 28351283
J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 Apr;9(4):EE01-6
pubmed: 26023563
Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 2000 May-Jun;58(3):291-7
pubmed: 10846233
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1997 Aug;1(4):309-13
pubmed: 9432385
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 16;13(7):e0200755
pubmed: 30011319
J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Jul;48(7):2495-501
pubmed: 20504986
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Jun;52(6):1846-52
pubmed: 24648554
J Clin Microbiol. 2019 Jan 30;57(2):
pubmed: 30541937
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 9;12(10):e0186139
pubmed: 29016684