4.7 Article

GenoType MTBDRsl for Molecular Detection of Second-Line-Drug and Ethambutol Resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis Strains and Clinical Samples

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 50, 期 1, 页码 30-36

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.05274-11

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias [FIS07/0551]
  2. Sociedad Espanola de Neumologia y Cirugia Toracica (SEPAR)
  3. Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Spain)
  4. AGAUR (Agencia de Gestio d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca), Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the GenoType MTBDRsl assay (Hain Lifescience GmbH, Nehren, Germany) for its ability to detect resistance to fluoroquinolones (FLQ), injectable second-line antibiotics [ kanamycin (KM) and capreomycin (CM)], and ethambutol (EMB) in Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical strains and directly in clinical samples. A total of 34 clinical strains were characterized with the Bactec 460 TB system. Fifty-four clinical samples from 16 patients (5 were smear negative and 49 were smear positive) were also tested directly. The corresponding isolates of the clinical specimens were also analyzed with the Bactec 460TB. When there was a discrepancy between assays, pyrosequencing was performed. The overall rates of concordance of the MTBDRsl and the Bactec 460TB for the detection of FLQ, KM/CM, and EMB susceptibility in clinical strains were 72.4% (21/29), 88.8% (24/27), and 67.6% (23/34), whereas for clinical samples, rates were 86.5% (45/52), 92.3% (48/52), and 56% (28/50), respectively. In conclusion, the GenoType MTBDRsl assay may be a useful tool for making early decisions regarding KM/CM susceptibility and to a lesser extent regarding FLQ and EMB susceptibility. The test is able to detect mutations in both clinical strains and samples with a short turnaround time. However, for correct management of patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, results must be confirmed by a phenotypical method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据