Xpert(MTB/RIF)和线性探针测定法在检测结核分枝杆菌的利福平耐药菌株方面的协同作用。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Journal of Infection in Developing Countries Pub Date : 2024-08-31 DOI:10.3855/jidc.18945
Shahida Hussain, Sikander Sultan, Saba Riaz, Hajra Hussain, Hasnain Javed, Rabia Mazhar
{"title":"Xpert(MTB/RIF)和线性探针测定法在检测结核分枝杆菌的利福平耐药菌株方面的协同作用。","authors":"Shahida Hussain, Sikander Sultan, Saba Riaz, Hajra Hussain, Hasnain Javed, Rabia Mazhar","doi":"10.3855/jidc.18945","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Early diagnosis and successful treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) demands rapid, precise, and consistent diagnostic methods to minimise the development of resistance. Therefore, this comparative study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Xpert (MTB/RIF) and Line probe assay (LPA) for detecting drug-resistant TB.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This study comprised 389 (279 pulmonary and 110 extrapulmonary) samples from patients suspected of having TB. All samples were subjected to Xpert (MTB/RIF), LPA, solid culture, and drug-susceptibility testing. Out of 320 samples, only 180 culture (gold standard) positive were included in the final evaluation. The diagnostic characteristics for methods used were determined by calculating diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. The agreement between all methods was determined by calculating the kappa coefficient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity and specificity for Xpert (MTB/RIF) for detecting TB were 88.5% and 96.4%, respectively, against the solid culture. On the other hand, LPA showed sensitivity and specificity at 94.3% and 100%, respectively. Xpert (MTB/RIF) showed moderate agreement (kappa 0.65, p < 0.01) - (73.3% sensitivity; 97.6% specificity) for the detection of rifampicin resistance. However, LPA achieved better diagnostic accuracy (kappa 0.80, p < 0.01) - (84.6% sensitivity; 98.4% specificity) against drug-resistant TB.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Xpert (MTB/RIF) and LPA have outstanding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity against RIF resistance with a shorter turnaround time, which could result in a substantial therapeutic outcome. Our findings showed LPA superiority over Xpert (MTB/RIF) for drug resistance. However, due to operational challenges, the requirement of technical expertise and infrastructure issues, LPA cannot be used as point-of-care testing in resource-limited countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":49160,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries","volume":"18 8","pages":"1241-1248"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Synergy of Xpert (MTB/RIF) and Line probe assay for detection of rifampicin resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.\",\"authors\":\"Shahida Hussain, Sikander Sultan, Saba Riaz, Hajra Hussain, Hasnain Javed, Rabia Mazhar\",\"doi\":\"10.3855/jidc.18945\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Early diagnosis and successful treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) demands rapid, precise, and consistent diagnostic methods to minimise the development of resistance. Therefore, this comparative study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Xpert (MTB/RIF) and Line probe assay (LPA) for detecting drug-resistant TB.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This study comprised 389 (279 pulmonary and 110 extrapulmonary) samples from patients suspected of having TB. All samples were subjected to Xpert (MTB/RIF), LPA, solid culture, and drug-susceptibility testing. Out of 320 samples, only 180 culture (gold standard) positive were included in the final evaluation. The diagnostic characteristics for methods used were determined by calculating diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. The agreement between all methods was determined by calculating the kappa coefficient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity and specificity for Xpert (MTB/RIF) for detecting TB were 88.5% and 96.4%, respectively, against the solid culture. On the other hand, LPA showed sensitivity and specificity at 94.3% and 100%, respectively. Xpert (MTB/RIF) showed moderate agreement (kappa 0.65, p < 0.01) - (73.3% sensitivity; 97.6% specificity) for the detection of rifampicin resistance. However, LPA achieved better diagnostic accuracy (kappa 0.80, p < 0.01) - (84.6% sensitivity; 98.4% specificity) against drug-resistant TB.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Xpert (MTB/RIF) and LPA have outstanding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity against RIF resistance with a shorter turnaround time, which could result in a substantial therapeutic outcome. Our findings showed LPA superiority over Xpert (MTB/RIF) for drug resistance. However, due to operational challenges, the requirement of technical expertise and infrastructure issues, LPA cannot be used as point-of-care testing in resource-limited countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries\",\"volume\":\"18 8\",\"pages\":\"1241-1248\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.18945\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.18945","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:耐药性结核病(TB)的早期诊断和成功治疗需要快速、精确和一致的诊断方法,以最大限度地减少耐药性的产生。因此,本比较研究旨在评估 Xpert(MTB/RIF)和Line probe assay(LPA)检测耐药结核病的诊断性能:本研究包括 389 份疑似肺结核患者样本(279 份肺部样本和 110 份肺部外样本)。所有样本均接受了 Xpert (MTB/RIF)、LPA、固体培养和药敏试验。在 320 份样本中,只有 180 份培养(金标准)阳性样本被纳入最终评估。通过计算诊断灵敏度、特异性和预测值,确定了所用方法的诊断特征。所有方法之间的一致性通过计算卡帕系数来确定:与固体培养相比,Xpert(MTB/RIF)检测结核病的灵敏度和特异性分别为 88.5%和 96.4%。而 LPA 的灵敏度和特异性分别为 94.3% 和 100%。Xpert(MTB/RIF)在检测利福平耐药性方面显示出中等程度的一致性(kappa 0.65,p < 0.01)--(灵敏度为 73.3%;特异度为 97.6%)。然而,LPA 的诊断准确性更高(kappa 0.80,p < 0.01):Xpert (MTB/RIF)和 LPA 对利福平耐药性的诊断灵敏度和特异性都很高,而且周转时间更短,这可能会带来显著的治疗效果。我们的研究结果表明,在耐药性方面,LPA 优于 Xpert(MTB/RIF)。然而,由于操作上的挑战、对专业技术的要求以及基础设施问题,LPA 无法在资源有限的国家用作护理点检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Synergy of Xpert (MTB/RIF) and Line probe assay for detection of rifampicin resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Introduction: Early diagnosis and successful treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) demands rapid, precise, and consistent diagnostic methods to minimise the development of resistance. Therefore, this comparative study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Xpert (MTB/RIF) and Line probe assay (LPA) for detecting drug-resistant TB.

Methodology: This study comprised 389 (279 pulmonary and 110 extrapulmonary) samples from patients suspected of having TB. All samples were subjected to Xpert (MTB/RIF), LPA, solid culture, and drug-susceptibility testing. Out of 320 samples, only 180 culture (gold standard) positive were included in the final evaluation. The diagnostic characteristics for methods used were determined by calculating diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. The agreement between all methods was determined by calculating the kappa coefficient.

Results: The sensitivity and specificity for Xpert (MTB/RIF) for detecting TB were 88.5% and 96.4%, respectively, against the solid culture. On the other hand, LPA showed sensitivity and specificity at 94.3% and 100%, respectively. Xpert (MTB/RIF) showed moderate agreement (kappa 0.65, p < 0.01) - (73.3% sensitivity; 97.6% specificity) for the detection of rifampicin resistance. However, LPA achieved better diagnostic accuracy (kappa 0.80, p < 0.01) - (84.6% sensitivity; 98.4% specificity) against drug-resistant TB.

Conclusions: Xpert (MTB/RIF) and LPA have outstanding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity against RIF resistance with a shorter turnaround time, which could result in a substantial therapeutic outcome. Our findings showed LPA superiority over Xpert (MTB/RIF) for drug resistance. However, due to operational challenges, the requirement of technical expertise and infrastructure issues, LPA cannot be used as point-of-care testing in resource-limited countries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
239
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries (JIDC) is an international journal, intended for the publication of scientific articles from Developing Countries by scientists from Developing Countries. JIDC is an independent, on-line publication with an international editorial board. JIDC is open access with no cost to view or download articles and reasonable cost for publication of research artcles, making JIDC easily availiable to scientists from resource restricted regions.
期刊最新文献
Clinical characteristics, depression, anxiety, and stress of medical workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey. Clinical profile of patients with surgical brain abscesses and etiology in a reference hospital. Constructing a predictive model based on peripheral blood signs to differentiate infectious mononucleosis from chronic active EBV infection. Correlation of the severity of the clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with respiratory function parameters in the post-COVID period. Distribution of vectors and arboviruses, and healthcare workers' knowledge of vector-borne diseases in Armenia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1