4.7 Article

Microscopic observation drug susceptibility assay, a rapid, reliable diagnostic test for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis suitable for use in resource-poor settings

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 42, 期 10, 页码 4432-4437

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.10.4432-4437.2004

关键词

-

资金

  1. FIC NIH HHS [5 D43 TW00910, D43TW 00010, D43 TW000910, D43 TW000010] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is an urgent need for new tools to improve our ability to diagnose tuberculosis (TB) and multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) in resource-poor settings. In a retrospective analysis undertaken in a region with a high incidence of TB, we evaluated the performance of the microscopic observation drug susceptibility assay (MODS), a novel assay developed in Peru which uses an inverted light microscope and culture in Middlebrook 7H9 broth to detect mycobacterial growth. MODS detected 94.0% of 1,908 positive sputum cultures, whereas Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) culture detected only 86.9% (P < 0.001). The median time to culture positivity was 8 days (compared to 16 days for the same 208 samples by LJ culture; P < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed rank test). The results obtained by direct susceptibility testing using MODS demonstrated excellent concordance for isoniazid and rifampin and the detection of multidrug resistance with those obtained by indirect colorimetric methods: the microplate Alamar Blue assay (MABA) and the tetrazolium microplate assay (TEMA) (agreement, 95, 98, and 94%; kappa values, 0.8, 0.7, and 0.7, respectively). The concordance of the susceptibility testing results for ethambutol and streptomycin was poor. MODS is a novel assay which can detect the organisms responsible for TB and MDR-TB directly from sputum inexpensively, rapidly, and effectively. A comprehensive prospective evaluation of MODS is under way in Peru, and independent validation in nonresearch laboratories should be undertaken at the earliest opportunity.

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