Acquired rifampicin resistance during first TB treatment: magnitude, relative importance, risk factors and keys to control in low-income settings.

Background: The incidence of acquired rifampicin resistance (RIF-ADR; RR) during first-line treatment varies. Objectives: Compare clinically significant RIF-ADR versus primary and reinfection RR, between regimens (daily versus no rifampicin in the continuation phase; daily versus intermittent rifampicin in the continuation phase) and between rural Bangladesh and Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. Methods: From patients with treatment failure, relapse, or lost to follow-up, both the outcome and baseline sputum sample were prospectively collected for rpoB sequencing to determine whether RR was present in both samples (primary RR) or only at outcome (RIF-ADR or reinfection RR). Results: The most frequent cause of RR at outcome was primary RR (62.9%; 190/302). RIF-ADR was more frequent with the use of rifampicin throughout versus only in the intensive phase (difference: 3.1%; 95% CI: 0.2-6.0). The RIF-ADR rate was higher with intermittent versus daily rifampicin in the continuation phase (difference: 3.9%; 95% CI: 0.4-7.5). RIF-ADR after rifampicin-throughout treatment was higher when resistance to isoniazid was also found compared with isoniazid-susceptible TB. The estimated RIF-ADR rate was 0.5 per 1000 with daily rifampicin during the entire treatment. Reinfection RR was more frequent in Kinshasa than in Bangladesh (difference: 51.0%; 95% CI: 34.9-67.2). Conclusions: RR is less frequently created when rifampicin is used only during the intensive phase. Under control programme conditions, the RIF-ADR rate for the WHO 6 month rifampicin daily regimen was as low as in affluent settings. For RR-TB control, first-line regimens should be sturdy with optimal rifampicin protection. RIF-ADR prevention is most needed where isoniazid-polyresistance is high, (re)infection control where crowding is extreme.

Pseudo-outbreak of pre-extensively drug-resistant (Pre-XDR) tuberculosis in Kinshasa: collateral damage caused by false detection of fluoroquinolone resistance by GenoType MTBDRsl.

Fluoroquinolones are the core drugs for the management of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). Molecular drug susceptibility testing methods provide considerable advantages for scaling up programmatic management and surveillance of drug-resistant TB. We describe here the misidentification of fluoroquinolone resistance by the GenoType MTBDRsl (MTBDRsl) (Hain Lifescience GmbH, Nehren, Germany) line probe assay (LPA) encountered during a feasibility and validation study for the introduction of this rapid drug susceptibility test in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. The double gyrA mutation 80Ala and 90Gly represented 57% of all fluoroquinolone mutations identified from MDR-TB patient sputum samples, as confirmed by DNA sequencing. This double mutation was previously found to be associated with susceptibility to fluoroquinolones, yet it leads to absent hybridization of a wild-type band in the MTBDRsl and is thus falsely scored as resistance. Our findings suggest that MTBDRsl results must be interpreted with caution when the interpretation is based solely on the absence of a wild-type band without confirmation by visualization of a mutant band. Performance of the MTBDRsl LPA might be improved by replacing the gyrA wild-type probes by additional probes specific for well-documented gyrA mutations that confer clinically relevant resistance.

Rifampin drug resistance tests for tuberculosis: challenging the gold standard.

The rapid diagnosis of rifampin resistance is hampered by a reported insufficient specificity of molecular techniques for detection of rpoB mutations. Our objective for this study was to document the prevalence and prognostic value of rpoB mutations with unclear phenotypic resistance. The study design entailed sequencing directly from sputum of first failure or relapse patients without phenotypic selection and comparison of the standard retreatment regimen outcome, according to the mutation present. We found that among all rpoB mutations, the best-documented "disputed" rifampin resistance mutations (511Pro, 516Tyr, 526Asn, 526Leu, 533Pro, and 572Phe) made up 13.1% and 10.6% of all mutations in strains from Bangladesh and Kinshasa, respectively. Except for the 511Pro and 526Asn mutations, most of these strains with disputed mutations tested rifampin resistant in routine Löwenstein-Jensen medium proportion method drug susceptibility testing (DST; 78.7%), but significantly less than those with common, undisputed mutations (96.3%). With 63% of patients experiencing failure or relapse in both groups, there was no difference in outcome of first-line retreatment between patients carrying a strain with disputed versus common mutations. We conclude that rifampin resistance that is difficult to detect by the gold standard, phenotypic DST, is clinically and epidemiologically highly relevant. Sensitivity rather than specificity is imperfect with any rifampin DST method. Even at a low prevalence of rifampin resistance, a rifampin-resistant result issued by a competent laboratory may not warrant confirmation, although the absence of a necessity for confirmation needs to be confirmed for molecular results among new cases. However, a result of rifampin susceptibility should be questioned when suspicion is very high, and further DST using a different system (i.e., genotypic after phenotypic testing) would be fully justified.