Pulmonary tuberculosis still remains a major communicable disease worldwide. In 2013, 9 million people developed TB and 1.5 million people died from the disease. India constitutes 24% of the total TB burden. Early detection of TB cases is the key to successful treatment and reduction of disease transmission. Xpert MTB/RIF, an automated cartridge-based molecular technique detects Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance within two hours has been endorsed by WHO for rapid diagnosis of TB. Our study is the first study from India with a large sample size to evaluate the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF assay in PTB samples. The test showed an overall sensitivity and specificity of 95.7% (430/449) and 99.3% (984/990) respectively. In smear negative-culture positive cases, the test had a sensitivity of 77.7%. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting rifampicin resistance was 94.5% and 97.7% respectively with respect to culture as reference standard. However, after resolving the discrepant samples with gene sequencing, the sensitivity and specificity rose to 99.0% and 99.3% respectively. Hence, while solid culture still forms the foundation of TB diagnosis, Xpert MTB/RIF proposes to be a strong first line diagnostic tool for pulmonary TB cases.

BackgroundThe objectives of the study were to compare the performance of line probe assay (GenoType MTBDRplus) with solid culture method for an early diagnosis of multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), and to study the mutation patterns associated with rpoB, katG and inhA genes at a tertiary care centre in north India.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, 269 previously treated sputum-smear acid-fast bacilli (AFB) positive MDR-TB suspects were enrolled from January to September 2012 at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences hospital, New Delhi. Line probe assay (LPA) was performed directly on the sputum specimens and the results were compared with that of conventional drug susceptibility testing (DST) on solid media [Lowenstein Jensen (LJ) method].ResultsDST results by LPA and LJ methods were compared in 242 MDR-TB suspects. The LPA detected rifampicin (RIF) resistance in 70 of 71 cases, isoniazid (INH) resistance in 86 of 93 cases, and MDR-TB in 66 of 68 cases as compared to the conventional method. Overall (rifampicin, isoniazid and MDR-TB) concordance of the LPA with the conventional DST was 96%. Sensitivity and specificity were 98% and 99% respectively for detection of RIF resistance; 92% and 99% respectively for detection of INH resistance; 97% and 100% respectively for detection of MDR-TB. Frequencies of katG gene, inhA gene and combined katG and inhA gene mutations conferring all INH resistance were 72/87 (83%), 10/87 (11%) and 5/87 (6%) respectively. The turnaround time of the LPA test was 48 hours.ConclusionThe LPA test provides an early diagnosis of monoresistance to isoniazid and rifampicin and is highly sensitive and specific for an early diagnosis of MDR-TB. Based on these findings, it is concluded that the LPA test can be useful in early diagnosis of drug resistant TB in high TB burden countries.

No abstract

No abstract

Background & objectives: Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab (NPS and OPS) collection is widely accepted as the preferred method for obtaining respiratory samples. However, it has certain disadvantages which may be overcome by gargling. The primary objective of this study was to assess agreement between gargle lavage and swab as an appropriate respiratory sample for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The secondary objective was to assess the patient acceptability of the two sampling methods. Methods: It was a cross-sectional study done at a tertiary care hospital in New Delhi, India, on 50 confirmed COVID-19 patients. Paired swab (NPS and OPS) and gargle samples were taken within 72 h of their diagnosis. Samples were processed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Post-sample collection, a 10-point scale was administered to assess the level of discomfort with either of the collection methods. Results: All gargle samples were positive and comparable to their corresponding swab samples irrespective of the symptoms and duration of illness. The cycle threshold (C t ) values for gargle samples were slightly higher but comparable to those of swabs. Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement between the two methods. Majority (72%) of the patients reported moderate-to-severe discomfort with swab collection in comparison to 24 per cent reporting only mild discomfort with gargle collection. Interpretation & conclusions: Our preliminary results show that the gargle lavage may be a viable alternative to swabs for sample collection for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Adoption of gargle lavage for sample collection will have a significant impact as it will enable easy self-collection, relieve healthcare workers and also lead to substantial cost savings by reducing the need for swabs and personal protective equipment.