Drug resistant tuberculosis: A diagnostic challenge

196 Journal of Postgraduate Medicine July 2013 Vol 59 Issue 3

Introduction

T he impact of tuberculosis (TB) can be devastating even today, especially in developing countries suffering

from high burdens of both TB and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In 2010, there were 8.8 million new cases of TB globally, causing 1.4 million deaths.[1] TB is a major public health problem in India, which accounts for one-fifth of the global TB incident cases. Each year nearly 2 million people in India develop TB, of which around 0.87 million are infectious cases.[2] It is estimated that annually around 2,80,000 (23/1,00,000 population) Indians die due to TB.[2] Drug resistance has enabled it to spread with a vengeance. The prevalence of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) and extensively-drug resistant TB tuberculosis (XDR-TB) are increasing throughout the world both among new TB cases as well as among previously treated ones.[3] Accurate and rapid diagnosis of drug-resistant TB is one of the paramount importance for instituting appropriate clinical management and appropriate infection control measures.[4,5] Fortunately, the

past few years have seen an unprecedented level of funding and activity focused on the development of new tools for diagnosis of drug resistant TB. This should go a long way in helping us arrest the spread of the disease.

Sources and method included PubMed search for recent articles using MeSH terms “TB” and “resistance” and “diagnosis.” Furthermore, World Health Organization (WHO) reports and national guidelines were used. The inclusion criteria for selected articles were based on relevance to the purpose of the review.

Drug Resistant TB

MDR-TB is a form of TB caused by a strain of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) resistant to the most potent first line anti-TB drugs, i.e., isoniazid (INH) and rifampicin (RIF). It has been estimated that India and China account for nearly 50% of the global burden of MDR-TB cases.[6] Approximately, 5% of all pulmonary TB cases in India may be MDR. MDR rates are low in new, untreated cases. The incidence in such cases ranges from 1% to 5% (mostly < 3%) in different parts of India.[7,8] However, during the last decade, there has been an increase in reported incidences of drug resistance in category II TB cases, particularly among those treated irregularly or with incorrect regimens and doses. In such cases, the incidence of MDR-TB varies from 11.8% to 47.1%.[9]

XDR-TB, is defined as TB caused by a strain of MTB that is resistant to RIF and INH as well as to any member of the quinolone family and at least one of the second line anti-TB

Department of Microbiology, Maharaja Krishna Chandra Gajapati Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur, Odisha, India

Address for correspondence: Dr. Muktikesh Dash, E‑mail: [email protected]

Drug resistant tuberculosis: A diagnostic challengedash m

ABSTRACTTuberculosis (TB) is responsible for 1.4 million deaths annually. Wide‑spread misuse of anti‑tubercular drugs over three decades has resulted in emergence of drug resistant TB including multidrug‑resistant TB and extensively drug‑resistant TB globally. Accurate and rapid diagnosis of drug‑resistant TB is one of the paramount importance for instituting appropriate clinical management and infection control measures. The present article provides an overview of the various diagnostic options available for drug resistant TB, by searching PubMed for recent articles. Rapid phenotypic tests still requires days to weeks to obtain final results, requiring biosafety and quality control measures. For newly developed molecular methods, infrastructure, training and quality assurance should be followed. Successful control of drug resistant TB globally will depend upon strengthening TB control programs, wider access to rapid diagnosis and provision of effective treatment. Therefore, political and fund provider commitment is essential to curb the spread of drug resistant TB.

KEY WORDS: Diagnosis, drug resistant, rapid, tuberculosis

Review Article

Received : 10‑10‑2012Review completed : 03‑12‑2012Accepted : 07‑06‑2013

access this article onlineQuick response code: website:

www.jpgmonline.com

doi:

10.4103/0022-3859.118038

pubmed id:

***

avinash

Rectangle

Dash: Diagnosis of drug resistant tuberculosis

Journal of Postgraduate Medicine July 2013 Vol 59 Issue 3 197

injectable drugs, i.e. kanamycin, capreomycin or amikacin. XDR-TB was first described in 2006. Since then, there have been documented cases in 77 countries world-wide by the end of 2011.[10] The global prevalence of XDR-TB has been difficult to assess. The prevalence of XDR-TB has been reported from India, which varies between low, i.e., 2.4% and as high as 21.1% in HIV infected persons suffering from MDR-TB.[11,12] Treatment outcomes are significantly worse for patients with XDR-TB, compared with patients with drug-susceptible TB or MDR-TB.[13,14] In the first recognized outbreak of XDR-TB, 53 patients in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, who were co-infected with XDR-TB and HIV, survived for an average of 16 days, with mortality of 98%.[15] XDR-TB raises concerns of a future TB epidemic with restricted treatment options and jeopardizes the major gains made in TB control.

Totally, drug resistant TB (TDR-TB) or extremely drug resistant TB is resistant to all first line and second line anti-tubercular drugs. The detection of four Mumbai cases, which were resistant to all first line and second line drugs.[16] This kind of rapid progression of drug resistance from MDR, to XDR and TDR-TB underlines the need for rapid and accurate diagnosis of drug resistant TB.

Molecular basis of drug resistanceRIF acts by binding to the beta-subunit of the ribonucleic acid (RNA) polymerase (coded for by the rpoB gene), inhibiting RNA transcription. Subsequent deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequencing studies have shown that more than 95% of RIF resistant strains have mutations in an 81-base pair region (codons 507-533) of the rpoB gene. INH inhibits enoyl-acyl carrier protein (ACP)-reductase (coded by the inhA gene), which is involved in mycolic acid biosynthesis. INH is also a “pro-drug,” which is converted to its active form by the catalase-peroxidase enzyme (coded by katG gene). Resistant mutants can be due to different regions of several genes, including binding of activated INH to its inhA target, the activation of the pro-drug by katG or by increased expression of the target inhA. Point mutations in codon 315 of the katG gene have been found in 50-90% of high-level INH resistant strains while 20-35% of low-level INH resistant strains have been reported mutations in inhA regulatory region and 10-15% have mutations in the ahpC-oxyR intergenic region (often together with katG mutations in other regions).[17]

Conventional Phenotypic Methods for Diagnosis of Drug Resistant TB

MTB is an extremely slow growing organism. Using the standardized drug susceptibility testing (DST) with conventional methods, 8-12 weeks are required to identify drug resistant TB on solid media (i.e. Lowenstein-Jensen [LJ] medium). In general, these methods assess inhibition of MTB growth in the presence of antibiotics to distinguish between susceptible and resistant strains. As the results usually take weeks, inappropriate choice of treatment regimen may result in death such as in case of XDR-TB (especially in HIV co-infected patients). In addition, delayed diagnosis of drug resistance results in inadequate treatment, which may generate additional drug resistance and

continued transmission in community. The most common medium for the agar proportion method in resource limited countries is LJ medium; however, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, (CLSI) considers this medium to be unsuitable for susceptibility testing due to uncertainty about the potency of drugs following inspissation and also because components present in the eggs or the medium may negatively affect some drugs. Both Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and CLSI recommend that Middle brook 7H10 agar supplemented with oleic albumin dextrose catalase (OADC) be used as the standard medium for the agar proportion assay.

Rapid phenotypic methods for diagnosis of drug resistant TBRapid automated liquid based culture and susceptibility testsAutomated liquid culture systems such as Bactec radiometric system (Bactec 460TB; Becton Dickinson, USA), non-radiometric systems MB/BacT ALERT (BioMerieux, France), Versa Trek (Trek Diagnostic System, USA) and mycobacteria growth indicator tube (MGIT 960; Becton Dickinson, USA) are more sensitive and shorter turnaround time than solid media cultures. These are also less labor intensive and therefore, less vulnerable to manual errors. But, automated systems still requires few weeks to obtain final results.[18] Also these instruments are costly, require maintenance and can be extremely difficult for most public health laboratories in developing countries.

Nitrate reductase assay (Griess method)The NRA is a liquid or solid medium technique that measures nitrate reduction by members of the MTB complex to indicate growth and to indicate resistance to INH and RIF. Since the NRA method uses nitrate reduction as a sign of growth, results are detected earlier than by examination of microcolonies on solid medium. However, the Griess reagent kills the organisms when added to the tubes, so multiple tubes must be inoculated if further testing is necessary. In addition, not all members of the MTB complex reduce nitrate, so the presence of nitrate-negative acid fast bacilli (AFB) may require further testing.

Thin layer agar cultures and TK mediumThin layers of middle brook 7H11 solid agar medium are used to detect microcolonies by conventional microscopy. It can be adapted for the rapid detection of drug resistance directly from sputum samples, but requires average turnaround time of 11 days.[19]

Newly developed test such as TK medium (Salubris Inc., USA) is a colorimetric system that indicates growth of mycobacteria by changing the color of the growth medium. Metabolic activity of growing mycobacteria changes the color of the culture medium and this allows for an early positive identification before bacterial colonies appear. Unfortunately, there is insufficient published evidence on the field performance of these tests in developing countries.[20]

Microscopic observation drug susceptibility assayThe MODS assay is based on characteristic cord formation of MTB that can be visualized microscopically (“strings and tangles” appearance) in liquid medium with or without antimicrobial drugs (for DST).[21] The test sensitivity is better



than traditional methods using LJ media with a turnaround time of 7 days for culture and drug susceptibility testing (C-DST) for INH and RIF. It is cheap, simple and fairly accurate.[22] Biosafety level-3 facilities are required if the plates are opened for further testing, such as for the confirmation of the identification of TB. Laboratories using MODS assay require a functioning biosafety cabinet, a safety centrifuge, an incubator, an inverted light microscope for observation of mycobacterial growth and supplemented liquid media (Middle brook 7H9 broth with OADC and PANTA).

Phage based assayPhage amplification-based test (FAST Plaque-Response, Biotech Laboratories Ltd. UK) has been developed for direct use on sputum specimens. Drug resistance is diagnosed when MTB is detected in samples that contain the drug (i.e., RIF). When these assays performed on MTB culture isolates, they have shown high sensitivity and variable specificity, but the evidence is lacking about the accuracy when they are directly applied to sputum specimens.[23] It also requires high standards of biosafety and quality control.

Luciferase reporter phages are genetically-modified phages containing the flux gene encoding firefly luciferase. This catalyzes a reaction producing light in the presence of the luciferin substrate and adenosine triphosphate; light is only produced in the presence of viable mycobacteria. Detection of light released from viable mycobacteria can be achieved by a luminometer or photographic film within 2-4 days from culture.[24] The luminometer readout is more sensitive and enables quantification of results while the use of Polaroid photographic film offers a lower-tech approach with lower sensitivity.

Rapid molecular methods for diagnosis of drug resistant TBSince the publication of genome details of MTB H37Rv strain in 1998, these have been utilized in development of nucleic acid amplification (NAA) tests for diagnosis of drug resistant TB. A number of NAA tests are now available, manual and automated, commercial and in the house, with varying performance characteristics. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and line probe assays (LPAs) have been commercialized and widely used in clinical laboratories merit special mention, detailed below.

RT-PCRMolecular tools are based on identification of specific mutations responsible for drug resistance, which are detected by the process of NAA in conjunction with electrophoresis, sequencing or hybridization. Direct sequencing techniques such as RT-PCR that uses wild-type primer sequences to amplify genes and enable the use of specific probes to identify mutations. Recently introduced semi-quantitative nested RT-PCR, which integrates and automates sample processing and simultaneously detects MTB and RIF resistance within the single-use disposable cartridges. A study examined 1,730 patients with suspected drug-sensitive or MDR pulmonary TB across Peru, Azerbaijan, South Africa and India. There was sensitive detection of MTB and RIF resistance directly from untreated sputum in < 2 h with

minimal hands-on time.[25] The WHO has recently supported the use of this system as an initial diagnostic test in respiratory specimens of patients with high clinical suspicion of having TB or who could be MDR.[26] These tests are very expensive require adequate maintenance and calibration of the equipment. Further, the specificity for RIF resistance in populations where MDR-TB is rare requires confirmation by repeat testing and thus increases cost.

LPAsLPAs are a family of novel DNA strip tests that use both PCR and reverse hybridization methods. In these assays, a specific target sequence is amplified and applied on nitrocellulose membranes. Specific DNA probes on the membrane hybridize with the amplified sequence applied on it. Color conjugates make the amplified target sequences appear as colored bands. These tests have been designed to identify MTB and simultaneously detect genetic mutations related to drug resistance both from clinical samples as well as culture isolates. These tests able to identify MTB complex and simultaneously detect genetic mutations in the rpoB gene region related to rifampin resistance. The LPA strip consists of 10 oligonucleotide probes: One is specific for the MTB complex, five are partially overlapping wild-type probes that span the region at positions 509-534 of the rpoB gene and four probes are specific for amplicons carrying the most common rpoB mutations (D516V, H526Y, H526D and S531L). According to a recent review, the sensitivities of the LPA are above 90% for clinical isolates with 99-100% specificity [Table 1]. It identifies MTB complex and simultaneously detects mutations in the rpoB gene as well as mutations in the katG gene for high-level INH resistance. These tests can also detect mutations in the inhA gene for low-level INH resistance and mutations in the gyrA, rrs and embB genes for 2nd line anti-tubercular drugs fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides and ethambutol respectively [Table 2].[32] The newly developed assay may represent a reliable tool for detection of fluoroquinolones, amikacin, capreomycin and ethambutol resistance. LPA strip can use culture isolates and smear positive sputum as specimen and provide results in 1-2 days. A recent laboratory evaluation study from South Africa estimated the accuracy of the GenoType MTBDRplus assay performed directly on AFB smear-positive sputum specimens.[33] It showed high sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for detection of RIF and INH resistance [Table 1]. However, a meta-analysis on this assay found that sensitivity estimates for INH resistance were comparatively modest.[33,34] In general, LPAs are expensive and require dedicated equipments, reagents and facilities. Molecular drug resistance testing has technical limitations, i.e., LPAs can detect only well characterized drug resistance alleles, not every drug resistance allele can be discriminated via current tests and silent mutations (which do not confer drug resistance) can be detected by probes leading to misclassification of drug resistance. In addition, molecular tests cannot determine the proportion of drug resistant bacteria within a mixed population of cells (i.e., wild type and drug resistant). Cross contamination with amplicons generated from previous tests can be problematic especially when the tests have been employed in laboratories without appropriate staff training and quality control.



Diagnostic testing algorithm for drug resistant TBLaboratory policies and testing of patients suspected of having drug-resistant TB depend on the local epidemiology, local treatment policies, the existing laboratory capacity, specimen referral and transport mechanisms and human and financial resources. Mycobacterial culture (solid or liquid) and identification of MTB provide a definitive diagnosis of TB. Culture also provides necessary isolates for conventional DST. Thus LPAs, RT-PCRs, MODS and NRA can be used in conjunction with culture (solid and liquid) and DST [Figure 1].[35]

Revised national tuberculosis control program and diagnosis of drug resistant TBThe RNTCP plans to strengthen laboratory capacity for MTB C-DST and LPA across India. To date, 35 RNTCP accredited labs including 14 LPA and 4 liquid culture labs in public and private sectors are serving patients while another 30 labs are under the process of up-gradation and accreditation under RNTCP, most of them include LPA and liquid culture for first and second line drugs.[36] In a policy statement released in June 2008, the WHO endorsed the use of LPA for rapid screening of patients at risk of MDR-TB and recommended the use

of LPAs only on culture isolates and smear-positive sputum specimens. It is not recommended as a complete replacement for conventional C-DST.[37] As of January 2012, diagnosis of XDR-TB can only be confirmed at three laboratories in India, which are quality assured for second line anti-TB DST of flouroquinolones and injectable drugs. These are the National Reference Laboratories (NRL) of tuberculosis research centre/national institute for research in tuberculosis (TRC/NIRT) Chennai, National Tuberculosis Institute (NTI) Bangalore and LRS Institute, New Delhi. Routine fluoroquinolone and injectable DST (i.e., XDR-TB diagnosis) on all MDR-TB patients at the beginning of treatment has been recommended by the RNTCP National Laboratory Committee in 2011, but the capacity to conduct that testing is not yet present in most C-DST laboratories used by RNTCP. Capacity building for second line DST is being undertaken through these NRLs.[26]

Prevention and Control of Drug Resistant TB

The principles of TB control are important for the prevention of drug resistant TB; these include prompt case detection, provision of curative treatment and prevention of transmission.

Table 1: Performance of methodologies used to diagnose drug resistant tuberculosisDrug resistance Methodology and products Sensitivity % (95% CI) Specificity % (95% CI) Reference number

Phenotypic methods for rifampicin resistance

Automated liquid based CST systems

MB/BacT

ALERT

99 98 [27]

Versa TREK 100 100

MGIT 960 99.8 99.2

NRA Griess method 99 100 [28]

MODS 98 (94.5‑99.3) 99.4 (95.7‑99.9) [29]

Phage based assay FASTPlaque‑response (commercial)

95.5 (92.2‑97.4) 95 (91.3‑97.2) [30]

FASTPlaque‑Response (in‑house)

98.5 (96.1‑99.4) 97.9 (94.8‑99.2)

Luciferase reporter phage

99.3 (49.1‑100) 98.6 (92.5‑99.8)

Phenotypic methods for isoniazid resistance

Automated liquid based CST systems

MB/BacT ALERT 100 95 [27]

Versa TREK 95.5 99

MGIT 960 97.1 100

NRA Griess method 94 100 [28]

MODS 97.7 (94.4‑99.1) 95.8 (88.1‑98.6) [29]

Molecular methods for rifampicin resistance

RT‑PCR GeneXpert® MTB/RIF 98 (97‑99) 99 (98‑99) [31]

Line probe assay INNO‑LiPA Rif. TB 93 (89‑96) 99 (99‑100)

MTBDRplus 97 (92‑99) 98 (95‑99)

Molecular methods for isoniazid resistance

Line probe assay MTBDRplus 77 (69‑83) 99 (97‑100)

Molecular methods for second‑line drug resistance

Line probe assay MTBDRsl (fluoroquinolones)W

85 (78‑91) 100 (97‑100)

Amikacin 90 (81‑96) 100 (98‑100)

Kanamycin 83 (59‑96) 100 (96‑100)

Capreomycin 87 (77‑94) 99 (96‑100)

Ethambutol 60 (52‑68) 98 (94‑100)

CST – Culture and susceptibility testing; NRA – Nitrate reductase assay; MODS – Microscopic observation drug susceptibility; RT‑PCR – Real time polymerase chain reaction; CI – Confidence interval; MTB – Mycobacterium tuberculosis; TB – Tuberculosis; RIF – Rifampicin; MGIT – Mycobacteria growth indicator tube



The WHO’s “Stop TB”[38] directly observed treatment short course (DOTS) strategy includes supervision and support of treatment, although there is little evidence that directly observed treatment alone improves cure rates.[39] Ineffective drug treatment is a strong risk factor for acquired drug resistance and proper administration of anti-tubercular drugs is critical to reduce this risk. An enhanced DOTS program, DOTS-plus has been developed for managing MDR-TB in resource limited settings.[40] This program recommends additional facilities for C-DST for detection of drug resistant TB and provision of appropriate second line anti-tubercular drugs.

As most of the resistance arises from either inadequate or inappropriate treatment of active disease, prevention of active disease indirectly prevents drug resistance. Contact tracing including family members and health-care workers, those who are at risk of acquiring drug resistant TB[41] is one of the fundamental measures to detect active disease, must be aligned to all health services. Prevention of transmission in healthcare settings is difficult in places where resources are limited with no isolation facilities; one approach is to manage cases with similar resistance profiles in segregated groups. However, simple, low-cost interventions, such as

Table 2: Summary of technologies used to diagnose drug resistant tuberculosisTechnologies Summary of technologies Estimated costs

Description Product Training Infrastructure Equipment Consumable

New solid culture methods

Measures nitrate reduction to indicate RIF and INH resistance

Non‑commercial (nitrate reductase assay)

Moderate BSL 2 to BSL 3

Low Medium

Simultaneously detects TB and indicate RIF and INH resistance

Non‑commercial (thin layer agar culture)

Extensive BSL 2 to BSL 3

Low Medium

Liquid culture Broth based manual and automated culture system; can be configured for DST

Commercial

BacT/ALERT

Versa TREK

MGIT 960

Extensive (3 weeks)

BSL 3 High High

MODS Manual liquid culture technique uses inverted microscope to detect TB

Non‑commercial Extensive BSL 2 to BSL 3

Medium Medium

RT‑PCR Allows automated sample processing, DNA amplification detection of TB and screening for RIF resistance

Commercial (GeneXpert® MTB/RIF)

GeneXpert detect mutations in 81‑base pair core region of rpoB and in codon 315 of katG genes respectively

Minimal Basic laboratory

High High

Molecular line probe assay

Strip test simultaneously detects TB genetic mutations for RIF/INH resistance

Commercial (INNO‑LiPA, MTBDR, MTBDRplus, MTBDRsl)

INNO‑LiPA targets the 16S‑23S DNA spacer region for mycobacteria and mutations in the rpoB gene region related to RIF resistance

MTBDR detect the 23S rRNA genes for mycobacteria and mutations in rpoB as well as katG genes for INH resistance

MTBDRplus target in addition inhA for low level INH resistance

MTBDRsl detects in addition gyrA, rrs and embB for fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides and ethambutol respectively

Moderate (3 days)

BSL 2 to BSL 3

High High

RIF – Rifampicin; INH – Isoniazid; MODS – Microscopic observation drug susceptibility; RT‑PCR – Real time polymerase chain reaction; TB – Tuberculosis; DST – Drug susceptibility testing. Basic laboratory (no specialized biosafety equipment). BSL 2 – Biosafety level 2 (specialized biosafety equipment required, such as biosafety cabinet); BSL 3 – Biosafety level 3 (biosafety cabinet and other safety equipment required. Controlled ventilation system that maintains a directional airflow into the laboratory also required); MGIT – Mycobacteria growth indicator tube; MTB – Mycobacterium tuberculosis; DNA – Deoxyribonucleic acid; rRNA – Ribosomal ribonucleic acid



Figure 1: Diagnostic algorithm for use of conventional microscopy, culture (solid or liquid), molecular assays and drug susceptibility testing methods. AFB – Acid fast bacilli, LPA – Line probe assay, PCR – Polymerase chain reaction, NRA – Nitrate reductase assay, MODS – Microscopic observation drug susceptibility assay, MDR – Multidrug-resistant, XDR – Extensively drug-resistant

opening windows and doors for adequate ventilation, can reduce transmission of TB.[42]

Conclusion

Successful control of drug resistant TB globally will depend on strengthening TB control programs, wider access to rapid C-DST along with emerging molecular diagnostic technologies and provision of effective treatment. Rapid and accurate diagnosis of drug resistant TB will require massive scaling-up of C-DST capacity and simultaneous use of molecular assays. Furthermore, all molecular tests require DNA extraction, gene amplification and detection of mutations and are, therefore, relatively expensive, demand resources and skills. These are usually unavailable in developing countries where rates of drug resistant TB are high. The challenge, therefore, is to not only develop new tools, but to also make sure that benefits of promising new tools actually reach the populations that need it most, but can least afford them. Therefore, political and fund provider commitment is essential to curb the spread of drug resistant TB.

References

1. World Health Organization. Tuberculosis global facts 2011/2012, 2011. Available from: http://www.who.int/tb/publications/2011/factsheet_tb_2011.pdf. [Cited on 2012 Jun 26].

2. Government of India. TB India 2011 RNTCP: Annual Status Report, 2011. Available from: http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/health/RNTCP_2011.pdf. [Cited on 2012 Jun 26].

3. World Health Organization. Towards universal access to diagnosis and treatment of multi‑drug resistant and extensively resistant tuberculosis by 2015: WHO progress report 2011, 2011. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501330_eng.pdf. [Cited on 2012 Jun 26].

4. Schaaf HS, Moll AP, Dheda K. Multidrug‑and extensively drug‑resistant tuberculosis in Africa and South America: Epidemiology, diagnosis and management in adults and children. Clin Chest Med 2009;30:667‑83, vii.

5. Wallis RS, Pai M, Menzies D, Doherty TM, Walzl G, Perkins MD, et al. Biomarkers and diagnostics for tuberculosis: Progress, needs, and translation into practice. Lancet 2010;375:1920‑37.

6. Nathanson E, Nunn P, Uplekar M, Floyd K, Jaramillo E, Lönnroth K, et al. MDR tuberculosis – Critical steps for prevention and control. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1050‑8.

7. Prasad R. Management of multi‑drug resistant tuberculosis: Practitioner’s view point. Indian J Tuberc 2007;54:3‑11.

8. World Health Organization. Multidrug and extensively drug‑resistant TB (M/XDR‑TB): 2010 global report on surveillance



and response, 2010. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241599191_eng.pdf. [Cited on 2012 Jun 26].

9. Sharma SK, Kumar S, Saha PK, George N, Arora SK, Gupta D, et al. Prevalence of multidrug‑resistant tuberculosis among category II pulmonary tuberculosis patients. Indian J Med Res 2011;133:312‑5.

10. World Health Organization. Tuberculosis: Frequently asked questions‑XDR‑TB, 2012. Available from: http://www.who.int/tb/challenges/xdr/faqs/en/index.html. [Updated on 2012 Jan 26; Cited on 2012 Jun 26].

11. Sharma SK, George N, Kadhiravan T, Saha PK, Mishra HK, Hanif M. Prevalence of extensively drug‑resistant tuberculosis among patients with multidrug‑resistant tuberculosis: A retrospective hospital‑based study. Indian J Med Res 2009;130:392‑5.

12. Myneedu VP, Visalakshi P, Verma AK, Behera D, Bhalla M. Prevalence of XDR TB cases: A retrospective study from a tertiary care TB hospital. Indian J Tuberc 2011;58:54‑9.

13. Kim HR, Hwang SS, Kim HJ, Lee SM, Yoo CG, Kim YW, et al. Impact of extensive drug resistance on treatment outcomes in non‑HIV‑infected patients with multidrug‑resistant tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:1290‑5.

14. Jacobson KR, Tierney DB, Jeon CY, Mitnick CD, Murray MB. Treatment outcomes among patients with extensively drug‑resistant tuberculosis: Systematic review and meta‑analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51:6‑14.

15. Gandhi NR, Moll A, Sturm AW, Pawinski R, Govender T, Lalloo U, et al. Extensively drug‑resistant tuberculosis as a cause of death in patients co‑infected with tuberculosis and HIV in a rural area of South Africa. Lancet 2006;368:1575‑80.

16. Migliori GB, Centis R, D’Ambrosio L, Spanevello A, Borroni E, Cirillo DM, et al. Totally drug‑resistant and extremely drug‑resistant tuberculosis: The same disease? Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:1379‑80.

17. Gillespie SH. Evolution of drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Clinical and molecular perspective. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002;46:267‑74.

18. Balabanova Y, Drobniewski F, Nikolayevskyy V, Kruuner A, Malomanova N, Simak T, et al. An integrated approach to rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis and multidrug resistance using liquid culture and molecular methods in Russia. PLoS One 2009;4:e7129. [About 9 p.]. Available from: http://www.plosone.org/article/info: doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone. 0007129. [Cited on 2012 Jun 10].

19. Robledo J, Mejia GI, Paniagua L, Martin A, Guzmán A. Rapid detection of rifampicin and isoniazid resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis by the direct thin‑layer agar method. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2008;12:1482‑4.

20. Pai M, Kalantri S, Dheda K. New tools and emerging technologies for the diagnosis of tuberculosis: Part II. Active tuberculosis and drug resistance. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2006;6:423‑32.

21. Caviedes L, Moore DA. Introducing MODS: A low‑cost, low‑tech tool for high‑performance detection of tuberculosis and multidrug resistant tuberculosis. Indian J Med Microbiol 2007;25:87‑8.

22. Moore DA, Evans CA, Gilman RH, Caviedes L, Coronel J, Vivar A, et al. Microscopic‑observation drug‑susceptibility assay for the diagnosis of TB. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1539‑50.

23. Pai M, Kalantri S, Pascopella L, Riley LW, Reingold AL. Bacteriophage‑based assays for the rapid detection of rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: A meta‑analysis. J Infect 2005;51:175‑87.

24. Hazbón MH, Guarín N, Ferro BE, Rodríguez AL, Labrada LA, Tovar R, et al. Photographic and luminometric detection of luciferase reporter phages for drug susceptibility testing of clinical Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates. J Clin Microbiol 2003;41:4865‑9.

25. Boehme CC, Nabeta P, Hillemann D, Nicol MP, Shenai S, Krapp F, et al. Rapid molecular detection of tuberculosis and rifampin resistance. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1005‑15.

26. World Health Organization. Roadmap for rolling out Xpert MTB/RIF

for rapid diagnosis of TB and MDR‑TB, 2010. Available from: http://www.who.int/entity/tb/laboratory/roadmap_xpert_mtb‑rif.pdf. [Cited on 2012 Jun 10].

27. Piersimoni C, Olivieri A, Benacchio L, Scarparo C. Current perspectives on drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex: The automated nonradiometric systems. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:20‑8.

28. Bwanga F, Hoffner S, Haile M, Joloba ML. Direct susceptibility testing for multi drug resistant tuberculosis: A meta‑analysis. BMC Infect Dis 2009;9:67.

29. Minion J, Leung E, Menzies D, Pai M. Microscopic‑observation drug susceptibility and thin layer agar assays for the detection of drug resistant tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta‑analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2010;10:688‑98.

30. Minion J, Pai M. Bacteriophage assays for rifampicin resistance detection in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Updated meta‑analysis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2010;14:941‑51.

31. Drobniewski F, Nikolayevskyy V, Balabanova Y, Bang D, Papaventsis D. Diagnosis of tuberculosis and drug resistance: What can new tools bring us? Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2012;16:860‑70.

32. World Health Organization. New Laboratory Diagnostic Tools for Tuberculosis Control. Geneva: WHO; 2008. Available from: http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/non‑tdr‑publications/diagnostic‑tool‑tb/en/index.html. [Cited on 2012 Sep 25].

33. Barnard M, Albert H, Coetzee G, O’Brien R, Bosman ME. Rapid molecular screening for multidrug‑resistant tuberculosis in a high‑volume public health laboratory in South Africa. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008;177:787‑92.

34. Ling DI, Zwerling AA, Pai M. GenoType MTBDR assays for the diagnosis of multidrug‑resistant tuberculosis: A meta‑analysis. Eur Respir J 2008;32:1165‑74.

35. World Health Organization. Framework for implementing new tuberculosis diagnostics, 2010, 2010. Available from: http://www.who.int/tb/laboratory/policy_statements/en/index.html. [Cited on 2013 Feb 5].

36. Tbcindia.nic.in. RNTCP response to challenges of drug resistant TB in India, 2012. Available from: http://tbcindia.nic.in/pdfs/RNTCP%20Response%20DR%20TB%20in%20India%20‑%20Jan%202012%20update.pdf. [Updated on 2012 Jan; Cited on 2012 Jun 10].

37. World Health Organization. Molecular line probe assay for rapid screening of patients at risk of multi‑drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR‑TB), 2008. Available from: http://www.who.int/tb/features_archive/policy_statement.pdf. [Cited on 2012 Jun 10].

38. World Health Organization. The Stop TB Strategy. Geneva: WHO; 2006. Available from: http://www.whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_HTM_STB_2006.368_eng.pdf. [Cited on 2012 Jun 25].

39. Volmink J, Garner P. Directly observed therapy for treating tuberculosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;4:1‑32. [Article number CD003343].

40. World Health Organization. Guidelines for the Programmatic Management of Drug‑Resistant Tuberculosis. Geneva: WHO; 2006. Available from: http://www.whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241546956_eng.pdf. 2008. [Cited on 2012 Jun 25].

41. Kranzer K, Bekker LG, van Schaik N, Thebus L, Dawson M, Caldwell J, et al. Community health care workers in South Africa are at increased risk for tuberculosis. S Afr Med J 2010;100:224, 226.

42. Escombe AR, Oeser CC, Gilman RH, Navincopa M, Ticona E, Pan W, et al. Natural ventilation for the prevention of airborne contagion. PLoS Med 2007;4:e68.

How to cite this article: Dash M. Drug resistant tuberculosis: A diagnostic challenge. J Postgrad Med 2013;59:196-202.

source of support: Nil, Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Drug resistant tuberculosis: A diagnostic challenge

Health & Medicine

Transcript of Drug resistant tuberculosis: A diagnostic challenge