medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-3054 (Electronic)

2015, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Cubana Med Trop 2015; 67 (1)

New tools for tuberculosis diagnosis

Martínez RMR, Sardiña AM, García LG, Mederos CLM, Díaz RR

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 41-49
PDF size: 131.98 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: In recent decades, new tools have been developed to decrease the time of diagnosis of infections with Mycobacterium tuberculosis.
Objective: To introduce the new tools for identification of M. tuberculosis and compare the results with culture in Löwenstein-Jensen.
Methods: 1 368 samples received at the National Tuberculosis Reference Laboratory of the IPK from August 2010 to August 2014. After samples processed were inoculated in parallel on Löwenstein Jensen and BacT ALERT. The results obtained are analyzed and compared with respect to the total isolates, time detection of growth and contamination rate, the performance indicators of BacT ALERT also calculated.
Results: By Bact/ALERT were identified Mycobacterium tuberculosis in 126 (98.5 %) samples and 116 (88.5 %) by Löwenstein-Jensen. The time detection of growth of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by BacT/ALERT was 16.6 days, two times lower than that obtained by the Löwenstein-Jensen (35.5 days). The contamination rate by Bact/ALERT and Löwenstein-Jensen was 11 % and 7.8 %, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity and Youden index was 99.1 %, 99.0 % and 0.98, respectively; and the validity index was 99 %.
Conclusions: Bact/ALERT system proved a useful method because it significantly shortened the time of tuberculosis diagnosis and start allowing treatment in a timely manner, especially in smear-negative patients. The combined use of liquid medium and Löwenstein-Jensen assured recovery of all strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.


REFERENCES

  1. Sorlozano A, Soria I, Roman J, Huertas P, Soto MJ, Piedrola G, et al. Comparative evaluation of three culture methods for the isolation of mycobacteria from clinical samples. J Microbiol Biotechnol 2009;19:1259-64.

  2. Parrish N, Dionne K, Sweeney A, Hedgepeth A, Carroll K. Differences in time to detection and recovery of Mycobacterium spp. between the MGIT 960 and BacT/ALERT MB automated culture systems. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2009;63:342-5.

  3. Piersimoni C, Scarparo C, Callegaro A, Passerine Tosi C, Nista D, Bornigia S, et al. Comparison of MB/BacT ALERT 3D system with radiometric BACTEC system and Löwenstein-Jensen medium for recovery and identification of mycobacteria from clinical specimens: a multicenter study. J Clin Microbiol 2001;39:651-7.

  4. Martínez Romero MR, Mederos Cuervo LM, Sardiña Aragón M, García León G, Díaz Rodríguez R. Evaluación del sistema automatizado BacT ALERT 3D para el aislamiento de micobacterias en el LNRTB-IPK. NCT 2012;71(4):252-7.

  5. Drobniewski FA, Caws M, Gibson A, Young D. Modern laboratory diagnosis of tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis 2003;3:141-7.

  6. Marrero A, Carreras L, Valdivia JA, Montoro E, González E, Torres R, et al. Programa Nacional de Control de la Tuberculosis. Manual de Normas y Procedimientos. La Habana: Ed. Ciencias Médicas; 2010.

  7. Gaillard T, Fabre M, Martinaud C, Vong R, Brisou P, Soler C. Assessment of the SD Bioline Ag MPT64 Rapid™ and the MGIT™ TBc identification tests for the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2011;70:154-6.

  8. Werngren J, Klintz L, Hoffner SE. Evaluation of a novel kit for use with the BacT/ALERT 3D system for drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:2130-2.

  9. Agudelo CA, Builes LN, Hernández M, Robledo J. Nuevos métodos para el diagnóstico de la tuberculosis. IATREIA 2008;21:321-32.

  10. Martínez MR, Sardiñas M, Garcia G, Mederos LM, Díaz R. Evaluation of BacT/ALERT 3D System for Mycobacteria Isolates. J Tuberc Research 2014;2:59-64.

  11. Alcaide F, Benítez MA, Escribà JM, Martín R. Evaluation of the BACTEC MGIT 960 and MB/BacT systems for recovery of mycobacteria from clinical specimens and for species identification by DNA AccuProbe. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:398-401.

  12. Harris G, Rayner A, Blair J, Watt B. Comparison of three isolation systems for the culture of mycobacteria from respiratory and non-respiratory samples. J Clin Pathol 2000;53:615-8.

  13. Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Manual para el Diagnóstico Bacteriológico de la Tuberculosis. Normas y guía técnica. Parte II. Cultivo. Washington DC: OPS; 2008.

  14. Alfa MJ, Manickam K, Sepehri S, Sitter D, Lenton P. Evaluation of BacT/Alert 3D automated unit for detection of nontuberculous mycobacteria requiring incubation at 30 degrees C for optimal growth. J Clin Microbiol 2011;49:2691-3.

  15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Updated guidelines for the use of nucleic acid amplification tests in the diagnosis of tuberculosis. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2009;58:7-10.

  16. Dionne K, Sweeney A, Hedgepeth A, Carroll K, Parrish N. Methods for reducing bacterial contamination in the BacT/Alert mycobacterial culture detection system. J Clin Microbiol 2005;43:2523-5.

  17. Garrigo M, Aragon LM, Alcaide F, Borrell S, Cardenosa E, Galan JJ, et al. Multicenter laboratory evaluation of the MB/BacT Mycobacterium detection system and the BACTEC MGIT 960 system in comparison with the BACTEC 460TB system for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol 2007;45:1766-70.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com