RESUMO
Introducción: La detección de patrones de resistencia de Mycobacterium tuberculosis se basa en pruebas de susceptibilidad fenotípicas y genotípicas. Los resultados discordantes entre ellas son un desafío clínico para el manejo de pacientes con tuberculosis resistente a fármacos. Objetivo: Evaluar la concordancia entre pruebas fenotípicas y moleculares en pacientes con tuberculosis resistente a fármacos atendidos en una institución de Cali, Colombia. Materiales y Métodos: Se realizó un estudio transversal en el que se obtuvo el perfil de sensibilidad fenotípico de cultivos de micobacterias y la susceptibilidad genotípica con las pruebas moleculares Xpert-MTB/ RIF® o Genotype-MDRTBplus ®. Se evaluó el porcentaje de resistencia y porcentaje de acuerdo entre los resultados de las pruebas fenotípicas y genotípicas. Se estimó un coeficiente de kappa de Cohen (κ) para cada tipo de resistencia según la prueba utilizada. Resultados: Se incluyeron 30 casos con resultados de pruebas genotípicas y fenotípicas. Las pruebas fenotípicas detectaron resistencia a fármacos de primera línea en 29/30 casos, mientras que las moleculares detectaron la resistencia en todos los casos evaluados. El porcentaje de resistencia a rifampicina detectado entre la prueba fenotípica y Genotype-MDRTBplus ® &e 61,5% (acuerdo global 41,1%, κ = 0,40, p = 0,96), mientras que el porcentaje de resistencia detectado con Xpert-MTB/RIF® fue 100% (acuerdo global 81,82%, κ: 0,00, p < 0,001) para este mismo medicamento. El porcentaje de resistencia a isoniacida detectado entre la prueba fenotípica y Genotype-MDRTBplus ® fue 94,4% (acuerdo global 89,47%, κ: -0,055 p = 0,59). Conclusiones: La discordancia entre los resultados de las pruebas genotípicas y fenotípicas es posible, por lo que es importante usar e interpretar ambos tipos de pruebas de manera complementaria en el diagnóstico de la resistencia a fármacos de primera línea en la infección por M. tuberculosis.
Background: The detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis resistance patterns is based on phenotypic and genotypic susceptibility tests. The discordant results between them are a clinical challenge for the management of patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis. Aim: To evaluate the concordance between phenotypic and molecular tests in patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis treated in an institution in Cali, Colombia. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted. A phenotypic sensitivity profile was obtained from mycobacterial cultures. The genotypic susceptibility was obtained with Xpert-MTB/ RIF® or Genotype-MDRTBplus ®. The percentage of resistance and percentage of agreement between the results of the phenotypic and genotypic tests were evaluated. A Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) was estimated for each type of resistance according to the test used. Results: A total of 30 cases with both genotypic and phenotypic testing were included. The phenotypic tests detected resistance to first-line drugs in 29/30 cases, while the molecular tests detected resistance in all the cases evaluated. The percentage of resistance detected between Genotype-MDRTBplus® and the phenotypic test for rifampicin was 61.5% (overall agreement 41.1%, κ = 0.40, p = 0.96), while the percentage of resistance detected with XpertMTB/RIF® was 100% (overall agreement 81.82%, κ: 0.00, p < 0.001) for this same drug. Resistance to isoniazid detected by both types of tests was 94.4% (overall agreement 89.47%, κ: -0.055 p = 0.59). Conclusions: Discordance between the results of genotypic and phenotypic tests is possible, so it is important to use and interpret both types of tests in a complementary way in the diagnosis of resistance to first-line drugs in M. tuberculosis infection.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: There is insufficient evidence supporting the use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for syphilis in people living with HIV (PLWH). We evaluated the diagnostic performance of two commercially available RDTs (Bioline and Determine) in PLWH in Cali, Colombia. METHODS: A cross-sectional field validation study on consecutive adults with confirmed HIV diagnosis attending three outpatient clinics. Both RDTs were performed on capillary blood (CB), obtained by finger prick, and sera, by venipuncture. A combination of treponemal enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and Treponema pallidum haemagglutination assay (TPHA) on serum samples was the reference standard. Rapid plasma reagin (RPR) and clinical criteria were added to define active syphilis. Sensitivity and specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios (LR) of RDTs were estimated with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Stratified analyses by sample type, patient characteristics, non-treponemal titers, operator and re-training were performed. RESULTS: 244 PLWH were enrolled, of whom 112 (46%) had positive treponemal reference tests and 26/234 (11.1%) had active syphilis. The sensitivities of Bioline on CB and sera were similar (96.4% vs 94.6%, p = 0.6). In contrast, Determine had a lower sensitivity on CB than sera (87.5% vs 99.1%, p<0.001). Sensitivities were lower in PLWH not receiving ART (Bioline 87.1% and Determine 64.5%, p<0.001) and for one of the operators (Bioline 85% and Determine 60%, p<0.001). Specificities of the RDTs were > 95% in most analyses. Predictive values were 90% or higher. For active syphilis, the RDTs showed a similar performance pattern but with decreased specificities. CONCLUSION: The studied RDTs have an excellent performance in PLWH to screen for syphilis and potentially for active syphilis, yet Determine performs better on sera than CB. Patient characteristics and potential difficulties operators may face in acquiring enough blood volume from finger pricks should be considered for the implementation and the interpretation of RDTs.
