Original Article
Microscopic-Observation Drug-Susceptibility Assay for the Diagnosis of TB
N Engl J Med 2006; 355:1539-1550October 12, 2006
- Abstract
Background
New diagnostic tools are urgently needed to interrupt the transmission of tuberculosis and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Rapid, sensitive detection of tuberculosis and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in sputum has been demonstrated in proof-of-principle studies of the microscopic-observation drug-susceptibility (MODS) assay, in which broth cultures are examined microscopically to detect characteristic growth.
Methods
In an operational setting in Peru, we investigated the performance of the MODS assay for culture and drug-susceptibility testing in three target groups: unselected patients with suspected tuberculosis, prescreened patients at high risk for tuberculosis or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, and unselected hospitalized patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. We compared the MODS assay head-to-head with two reference methods: automated mycobacterial culture and culture on Löwenstein–Jensen medium with the proportion method.
Results
Of 3760 sputum samples, 401 (10.7%) yielded cultures positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Sensitivity of detection was 97.8% for MODS culture, 89.0% for automated mycobacterial culture, and 84.0% for Löwenstein–Jensen culture (P<0.001); the median time to culture positivity was 7 days, 13 days, and 26 days, respectively (P<0.001), and the median time to the results of susceptibility tests was 7 days, 22 days, and 68 days, respectively. The incremental benefit of a second MODS culture was minimal, particularly in patients at high risk for tuberculosis or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Agreement between MODS and the reference standard for susceptibility was 100% for rifampin, 97% for isoniazid, 99% for rifampin and isoniazid (combined results for multidrug resistance), 95% for ethambutol, and 92% for streptomycin (kappa values, 1.0, 0.89, 0.93, 0.71, and 0.72, respectively).
Conclusions
A single MODS culture of a sputum sample offers more rapid and sensitive detection of tuberculosis and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis than the existing gold-standard methods used.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Recruitment of Patients and Culture Results.Figure 2
Incremental Benefit of One and Two Sputum Cultures as Compared with Sputum-Smear Microscopy.Article Activity
- Article
Every year, 1.7 million people die of tuberculosis, a curable disease.1 The poor are disproportionately affected, and tuberculosis further impoverishes individual people and societies. Goal 6 of the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations includes the halting and reversal of the rising incidence of tuberculosis, and the Stop TB Partnership aims to halve the prevalence of tuberculosis and resulting deaths by 2015.2 Existing control strategies miss important opportunities to interrupt transmission. Improved tuberculosis detection and early identification of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis are key gaps.
Sputum-smear–based diagnosis under the Direct Observation of Therapy (Short Course) (DOTS) strategy of the World Health Organization for global tuberculosis control misses half of incident cases at first presentation. Transmission continues until cases are detected with more advanced (smear-positive) disease and are correctly treated. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis increases morbidity and mortality and, through treatment failure,3 facilitates continuing transmission from patients who (like their health care providers) wrongly believe they are being cured. The use of treatment failure to prompt drug-susceptibility testing relies on the same illness-threshold effect as waiting for smears to become positive in patients with negative smears.4 Both scenarios could be addressed by appropriate new diagnostics.5
The microscopic-observation drug-susceptibility (MODS) assay for the detection of tuberculosis and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, directly from sputum, relies on three principles: first, that Mycobacterium tuberculosis grows faster in liquid medium than in solid medium; second, that characteristic cord formation can be visualized microscopically in liquid medium at an early stage; and third, that the incorporation of drugs permits rapid and direct drug-susceptibility testing concomitantly with the detection of bacterial growth.
In proof-of-principle studies, the MODS assay distinguished patients with tuberculosis from healthy controls.6,7 In accordance with recommendations,8 we undertook an operational evaluation of the MODS assay in order to answer two questions: How well does it distinguish between patients with and those without active tuberculosis among those with suspected tuberculosis? Among patients with active tuberculosis, how well does it distinguish drug-resistant disease from drug-sensitive disease?
Given the challenges of the evaluation of techniques for the diagnosis of tuberculosis,9-13 our study was conducted in accordance with the emerging consensus about the design and reporting of diagnostic-test evaluations14-18 and the minimum standards required for diagnostic trials of tuberculosis.8,19,20
Methods
Study Patients and Setting
The study was conducted in Lima, Peru, from April 2003 through July 2004 in three target groups, with consecutive recruitment. The first group consisted of otherwise unselected patients who presented with suspected tuberculosis to the National TB Programme at 10 government clinics in north Lima. The second consisted of patients who presented with suspected tuberculosis to the National TB Programme at five government clinics in east Lima and who were at high risk for tuberculosis or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Inclusion in this group required the presence of one or more constitutional symptoms (fever, weight loss, night sweats, hemoptysis) or one risk factor for tuberculosis or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (prior treatment for tuberculosis, known contact with a patient with tuberculosis, infection with human immunodeficiency virus [HIV], employment as a health care or prison worker, hospitalization during the previous year, or any previous incarceration). The third group consisted of otherwise unselected hospitalized patients with HIV infection at two Lima hospitals, regardless of the diagnosis on admission. Exclusion criteria for all groups were an age under 18 years or an inability or unwillingness to give written informed consent. Study protocol and consent forms were approved by the institutional review boards of Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Asociación Benéfica PRISMA, Dirección de Salud–III Lima Norte and Dirección de Salud–IV Lima Este (regional Ministry of Health), Hospital Nacional Hipolito Unanue, Hospital Nacional General Arzobispo Loayza, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Imperial College London.
Sample Collection
Patients with suspected tuberculosis and prescreened patients at high risk for tuberculosis or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis submitted two samples of sputum to the National TB Programme for routine Ziehl–Neelsen staining and consented to their subsequent use in the study (at Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia). Among the hospitalized patients with HIV infection, two samples per patient were collected exclusively for the study, of which 20 were from gastric washing in 15 patients who were unable to provide adequate sputum samples.
Patients with suspected tuberculosis and prescreened patients at high risk for tuberculosis or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis who were eligible for the study were not recruited if they presented at the clinic outside of normal working hours (>90% of excluded patients), declined to participate (<5%), or if the clinic staff were unavailable (<5%). Numbers of eligible patients were derived from data extracted from National TB Programme log entries during the recruitment period; the numbers may have been overestimated, since follow-up patients (who were ineligible) were not always clearly identified. Of the 25 hospitalized patients with HIV infection who were eligible but not recruited, more than 90% were incapable of providing informed consent, owing to their clinical condition, or were receiving ongoing treatment for tuberculosis. Most, but not all, patients submitted two sputum samples.
Laboratory Methods
Detection of M. tuberculosis
Sputum samples were decontaminated according to the sodium hydroxide–N-acetyl-l-cysteine method.21 An aliquot was used for microscopical examination of auramine-stained sputum smears, and the remainder was used for parallel Löwenstein–Jensen culture, automated mycobacterial culture, and MODS culture (see Fig. I in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at www.nejm.org). Löwenstein–Jensen culture and automated mycobacterial culture with the use of the MBBacT system (bioMérieux) were selected because they are reference methods commonly used in developing and industrialized countries, respectively. After inoculation of 250 μl of decontaminant, Löwenstein–Jensen slants were incubated at 37°C and examined twice weekly from day 7 through day 60.21 MBBacT bottles were inoculated with 500 μl of decontaminant, and cultures were monitored continuously for 42 days according to the recommendations of the manufacturer.
The MODS assay was performed as described previously.6,7 Briefly, broth cultures were prepared in 24-well tissue-culture plates (Becton Dickinson), each containing 720 μl of decontaminant, Middlebrook 7H9 broth (Becton Dickinson), oxalic acid, albumin, dextrose, and catalase (OADC) (Becton Dickinson), and polymyxin, amphotericin B, nalidixic acid, trimethoprim, and azlocillin (PANTA) (Becton Dickinson). For each sample, 12 wells were used: in 4 control wells, no drug was added, and each of the remaining 8 wells contained one of four drugs at one of two concentrations tested. The cultures were examined under an inverted light microscope at a magnification of 40× every day (except Saturday and Sunday) from day 4 to day 15, on alternate days from day 16 to day 25, and twice weekly from day 26 to day 40. To minimize cross-contamination and occupational exposure, plates were permanently sealed inside plastic ziplock bags after inoculation and were subsequently examined within the bag. Positive cultures were identified by cord formation, characteristic of M. tuberculosis growth, in liquid medium in drug-free control wells, as described previously.6,7,22 Nontuberculous mycobacteria were recognized by their lack of cording or, for M. chelonae (which is the only nontuberculous mycobacteria that does form cords), by rapid overgrowth by day 5. Fungal or bacterial contamination was recognized by rapid overgrowth and clouding in wells.
If contamination was detected, the original sample was cultured again after being decontaminated once more. Spacer oligonucleotide typing (spoligotyping), polymerase chain reaction with multiple primers,23 or both were applied to all isolates from each of the three types of cultures in order to confirm the presence of M. tuberculosis.
Drug-Susceptibility Testing
Direct drug-susceptibility testing was performed with the use of the MODS assay, as previously described.6,7 Growth in drug-free control wells but not in drug-containing wells indicated susceptibility. The drug concentrations used were as follows: isoniazid, 0.1 and 0.4 μg per milliliter; rifampin, 1 and 2 μg per milliliter; ethambutol, 2.5 and 5.0 μg per milliliter; and streptomycin, 2 and 6 μg per milliliter. Drug-sensitive control strains were tested daily. Indirect drug-susceptibility testing was performed with the use of the proportion method21 for isolates from Löwenstein–Jensen culture (by an external laboratory) and with the automated MBBacT system24-29 for isolates from the automated mycobacterial culture. For purposes of discrepant analysis, the microplate alamar blue assay30-35 was performed in parallel, both for all Löwenstein–Jensen isolates and for isolates from drug-free control wells in the MODS assay. All procedures were performed by six staff members of the mycobacteriology laboratory who were unaware of the results of the other tests.
Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed with the use of Stata 7 software, with the sample as the unit of analysis, to reflect the operational performance of a routine service laboratory. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the times to each end point among the three methods. A P value of less than 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. The concordance of susceptibility results was determined with the use of the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the detection of resistance (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]), as well as with kappa values.
To address the inherent difficulty of evaluating a test that is more sensitive than the reference tests, and to minimize incorporation bias (the use of results from the investigational test as part of the reference result), we previously undertook a comprehensive microbiologic, molecular, and epidemiologic investigation of the discordant cultures.36 We identified 17 cross-contaminated cultures (12 MODS cultures, 4 automated mycobacterial cultures, and 1 Löwenstein–Jensen culture) from 14 samples. For sensitivity and specificity of detection and predictive-value calculations for each of the three methods, a positive reference result was defined as a positive culture according to at least one method for which cross-contamination had been conclusively ruled out.36 A negative reference result was defined as any sample in which all three culture methods yielded negative results or in which two were negative and the third indeterminate, owing to repeated bacterial or fungal overgrowth, or a sample for which cross-contamination was demonstrated to be the only cause of the positive culture.36
Thus, the 17 false positive cultures were defined as positive in calculations of performance characteristics for the relevant methods, but the reference result for the 14 samples was determined to be negative. McNemar's χ2 test was used to compare the sensitivities of detection of the three methods.
Definition of Reference Susceptibility Test Results
Concordant results from automated mycobacterial culture and the proportion method were regarded as the reference result for drug susceptibility. Discordant results from automated mycobacterial culture and the proportion method were resolved by means of discrepant analysis, with the use of the two parallel results from the microplate alamar blue assay. If both results from this assay agreed, that result was used as the reference result; if not, the strain was designated indeterminate (see Table I in the Supplementary Appendix).
Results
Patients and Samples
Recruitment of patients and culture results are shown in Figure 1Figure 1
Recruitment of Patients and Culture Results.. Demographic characteristics and tuberculosis diagnoses are shown in Table 1Table 1
Demographic Characteristics, Prevalence of Disease, and Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values for the Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Sputum. according to study group.Sensitivity and Specificity of Detection
Of the 3760 sputum samples collected, 401 (10.7%) were positive for M. tuberculosis cultures, 3356 were negative, and 3 were indeterminate (and were removed from analysis), because all three types of cultures were repeatedly contaminated by bacterial overgrowth. MODS culture had a greater overall sensitivity of detection than either automated mycobacterial culture or Löwenstein–Jensen culture (97.8%, 89.0%, and 84.0%, respectively; P<0.001); this difference was maintained in all groups. The overall specificity of detection was 99.6% for MODS culture, 99.9% for automated mycobacterial culture, and 100.0% for Löwenstein–Jensen culture. Predictive values and data according to group are shown in Table 1, and in Figure II of the Supplementary Appendix.
Added Value of Second Culture for Sensitivity of Detection
The incremental benefit of a second smear for acid-fast bacilli and a second sputum culture is shown in Figure 2Figure 2
Incremental Benefit of One and Two Sputum Cultures as Compared with Sputum-Smear Microscopy.. A second MODS culture detected an additional 8.2% of cases among patients with suspected tuberculosis but offered no added value among prescreened patients at high risk for tuberculosis or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.Time to Culture Positivity
Of the 401 sputum samples positive for M. tuberculosis, 325 were culture-positive according to all three methods and were thus included in the head-to-head analysis of time to culture positivity (Figure 3Figure 3
Cumulative Percentages of the Time to Culture Positivity for 325 Culture-Positive Samples According to Culture Method (Panel A) and the Effect of the Quantitative Status of Sputum Smears for Acid-Fast Bacilli (Panels B, C, and D).). The median time to culture positivity was significantly shorter for MODS than for the automated mycobacterial or Löwenstein–Jensen cultures (7 days [interquartile range, 6 to 8] vs. 13 days [interquartile range, 10 to 16] and 26 days [interquartile range, 21 to 33], respectively; P<0.001). Smear status had a clinically unimportant, though significant, effect on time to culture positivity in MODS culture (median, 6 days for a smear-positive sample vs. 7 days for a smear-negative sample; P<0.001). Though samples that were culture-negative (69) or contaminated (7) according to at least one method were excluded from this analysis, results were unchanged by their inclusion (data not shown).Bacterial and Fungal Contamination of Cultures
The median time from sample collection to sample processing was 3 days, and most but not all samples were refrigerated en route. At least one culture per sample was contaminated in 739 of 3760 samples (20.0%), though in only 63 samples (1.7%) were all cultures by the three methods contaminated. The proportion of initially contaminated samples was 8.1% (95% CI, 7.2 to 9.0) for MODS culture, 4.4% (95% CI, 3.8 to 5.3) for automated mycobacterial culture, and 14.2% (95% CI, 13.1 to 15.3) for Löwenstein–Jensen culture. However, ultimately contaminated (indeterminate) cultures were less frequent in MODS culture (6 cultures, 0.2%) than in either automated mycobacterial culture (11 cultures, 0.3%; P=0.01) or Löwenstein–Jensen culture (55 cultures, 1.5%; P<0.001). The median time from initial processing of samples to the results of culture testing for initially contaminated cultures was shorter for MODS culture (24 days; 95% CI, 19 to 28) than for automated mycobacterial culture (32 days; 95% CI, 25 to 39; P=0.03) or Löwenstein–Jensen culture (50 days; 95% CI, 44 to 56; P<0.001). Positive MODS cultures that were contaminated but able to be evaluated accounted for less than 2.5% of all positive cultures for the assay.
Direct Drug-Susceptibility Testing
Valid drug-susceptibility testing in the MODS assay depends on the observed growth of M. tuberculosis in all four control wells, as was the case for 349 of 392 positive MODS cultures (89.0%). Of the 43 samples for which drug-susceptibility testing in the MODS assay was not possible, 28 (65.1%) were culture-negative according to automated mycobacterial culture and Löwenstein–Jensen culture. Resistance to rifampin was detected in 10.7% of all samples; to isoniazid, in 19.5%; to rifampin and isoniazid (combined to test for multidrug resistance), in 10.4%; to ethambutol, in 10.1%; and to streptomycin, in 21.4% (Table 2Table 2
Susceptibility Results from the MODS Assay and Concordance with the Gold-Standard Methods.). The proportion of samples for which susceptibility results agreed between MODS culture and the gold-standard methods was 100% for rifampin, 96.7% for isoniazid, 98.8% for rifampin and isoniazid, 95.4% for ethambutol, and 91.7% for streptomycin. Overall median times from initial sample processing to the results of drug-susceptibility testing were 7 days for MODS culture, 22 days for automated mycobacterial culture, and 68 days for Löwenstein–Jensen culture.Discussion
This operational study extends and provides support for the findings of earlier proof-of-principle studies6,7,22,37 and demonstrates that the MODS assay outperforms the gold-standard reference methods of developing and industrialized countries. For all three study groups, the MODS assay detected M. tuberculosis in sputum with greater sensitivity and speed and reliably identified multidrug-resistant tuberculosis strains in less time than did Löwenstein–Jensen or automated mycobacterial cultures. These data indicate that the MODS assay could be considered for use in appropriate settings.
Our study was designed to address conventional pitfalls.8,15,18,20,38 Specifically, it was performed in an appropriately broad group of patients with or without disease and in pertinent patient groups (without selection bias); all tests were performed in all patients (preventing verification bias); and all results were interpreted by staff members who were unaware of the other test results, using appropriate gold-standard reference methods for comparison.
The robustness of our study derives from its operational, real-world design. Meticulous resolution of discordant results is essential when an investigational diagnostic method is more sensitive than existing reference standards. Use of two established reference methods for comparison and two samples per patient facilitated the rigorous definition of true positive results, addressing the problem of incorporation bias. The high specificity and infrequent cross-contamination in the MODS assay36 relate to the containment of the plates in ziplock bags and the absence of manipulation after inoculation, which also improve biologic security.
The greater sensitivity and speed of detection in MODS culture than in the gold standards were predicted on the basis of previous studies.6,7,37 The increased sensitivity of liquid medium has long been known, and a discerning human eye can scrutinize cultures better than can automated systems with their use of necessarily rigid cutoff values. It is simpler to recognize the characteristic cord formation than to read a malarial smear; within 1 week, students training in our laboratory can comfortably and accurately read one well per minute, considerably faster than the time it takes to read a smear for acid-fast bacilli. Training in the MODS assay can be completed in less than 2 weeks (similar to training in Löwenstein–Jensen and automated mycobacterial cultures; training in drug-susceptibility testing with the proportion method takes several months). Beyond standard laboratory equipment, automated mycobacterial culture requires computer-linked automated culture incubators, whereas MODS culture requires only an inverted light microscope. As purchased by us, the cost of $2 per sample for MODS culture compares favorably with the $6 cost per sample for Löwenstein–Jensen culture and the proportion method and the cost of $52 per sample for automated mycobacterial culture; however, labor costs may be higher for MODS culture.
Increased sensitivity carries the risk of increased bacterial overgrowth (for MODS culture and automated mycobacterial culture), though even after repeated decontamination, the sensitivity and specificity of MODS culture were unaffected. High speed, sensitivity, and specificity, and the requirement for only one culture, all enhance tuberculosis rule-out procedures and potentially simplify tuberculosis-screening algorithms for use in patients with HIV infection before the initiation of prophylactic treatment with isoniazid. If a MODS culture is negative on day 15, there is a 99.7% chance that the sample is truly culture-negative. Thus, we believe that a negative MODS culture can be discarded after 3 weeks.
In settings with a high tuberculosis burden, the only susceptibility data that are likely to effect a change in therapy at the programmatic level are those for the detection of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, for which the performance of the MODS assay is highly reliable and rapid (median time to the results of susceptibility testing, 7 days), providing clinically important information in a meaningful time frame. Although direct drug-susceptibility testing is conventionally viewed with suspicion — indirect testing of cultured strains is preferred — our data refute that view for rifampin and isoniazid in the MODS assay. However, susceptibility testing for M. tuberculosis is complex, and concordance among even regional laboratories performing gold-standard testing is particularly variable for ethambutol and streptomycin.39 Our findings for these two drugs agreed with previous data for the MODS assay,7 demonstrating insufficient concordance of the assay (at least in its current format) with gold standards to recommend usage.
Our study defines strengths and redundancies in the first-generation MODS assay and should enable the development of a streamlined, clinically useful method. The use of fewer wells per sample than we used — two wells with no drug (to ensure high specificity), one with rifampin (1 μg per milliliter), and one with isoniazid (0.4 μg per milliliter) — reduces costs by 40% but does not affect performance. The MODS assay is “laboratory freeware,” not a commercial product or a kit. Any laboratory that is adequately biologically secured, has an incubator and a centrifuge, and is capable of microscopy can safely perform MODS culture. All ingredients are available from major laboratory suppliers.
Downstream effects on patient care are the litmus test of the utility of a new method, and the added value will therefore depend on context and strategy for implementation. In countries where smear-negative tuberculosis is frequently diagnosed and treated empirically, the incremental benefit of MODS culture on case detection, as compared with the smear alone, would be less than that in Peru, where only 21% of treated cases are smear-negative and where MODS culture has recently been incorporated into Ministry of Health guidelines (www.minsa.gob.pe/normaslegales/2006/RM383-2006.pdf). However, the high specificity rate would save patients and society money by minimizing overtreatment, and the early detection and treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis would interrupt transmission. Equity in the access to high-performance techniques to diagnose tuberculosis thus benefits both individual health40,41 and public health. Despite the low cost per sample, in many resource-limited settings with a high tuberculosis burden, testing by the MODS assay of all patients with suspected tuberculosis (<5% of whom have culture-positive disease in Peru) would be a challenge financially and operationally. In our targeted, high-risk groups, only one MODS culture (collected in one visit) is required to achieve culture-positive rates of 20%, a good return on the investment. Programmatic studies are now needed to determine the optimal implementation strategy to maximize the effect and cost-effectiveness of this tool.
The MODS assay addresses two key gaps in resource-limited settings with a high tuberculosis burden: rapid, accurate detection of M. tuberculosis and simultaneous identification of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. The use of culture-based diagnostic techniques for case detection may not be the future as envisaged by the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease42; promotion of such a strategy may conflict with the view that the scale-up of coverage and improvement of smear microscopy is currently a more important priority. However, we believe the MODS assay could now be implemented in settings in which smear microscopy is being optimally used and the augmentation of case detection is feasible and desirable.
Presented in part at the 35th UNION World Conference on Lung Health, Paris, October 28–November 1, 2004 (abstract nos. PS-456-493 and PC-456-496).
Supported by a grant from the Wellcome Trust (064672). Dr. Gilman and Ms. Caviedes were supported by a National Institutes of Health–Fogarty–Global Research Training Grant (TW006581).
Drs. Moore and Evans report having received grant support from Sequella for clinical trials of another tuberculosis diagnostic test. Dr. Gilman reports having received consulting fees from Sequella. Dr. Vivar reports having received grant support from Merck, Chiron, and Cerexa. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
We are indebted to all participants in this study, for almost all of whom this was their first experience with clinical research; to the numerous medical and laboratory staff members at the community-clinic and hospital study sites who ensured that the protocol ran smoothly, particularly Yuri García, Adolfo Orellana Marin, Raul Miranda Arrostigue (Centro de Salud [CS] Carlos Cueto Fernandini), Guillermo Vera Mallqui (Centro Base de Salud Los Olivos), Luis Rivera Pérez (CS Infantas), Walter Ramos Maguiña (CS Villa Norte), Luz Vásquez Chávez (CS Primavera), Félix Pari Loayza (CS Juan Pablo II), Ruth Flores Escobar (Puesto de Salud [PS] Los Olivos de Pro), Jesús Castillo Diaz (CS-Comites Locales de Administracíon Compartida [CS-CLAS] Laura Caller Iberico), Milciades Reátegui Sanchez (CS-CLAS San Martín de Porres), Alicia Vigo Alegria (PS Enrique Milla Ochoa); and to laboratory, support, and field staff members at Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia and Asociación Benéfica PRISMA, particularly Paula Maguiña, Fanny Garcia, Eleana Sanchez, Yrma Chuquiruna, Rosmery Gutierrez, Sonia Lopez, Christian Solis, Indira Villaverde, Pilar Navarro, and Natalie Bowman.
Source Information
From the Department of Infectious Diseases and Immunity and the Wellcome Centre for Clinical Tropical Medicine, Imperial College London, Faculty of Medicine (Hammersmith Campus), London (D.A.J.M., C.A.W.E., A.R.E., J.S.F.); Asociación Benéfica PRISMA, San Miguel (D.A.J.M., C.A.W.E., R.H.G., M.-G.H.-D., A.R.E.), Laboratorio de Investigación de Enfermedades Infecciosas, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, San Martín de Porras (D.A.J.M., C.A.W.E., R.H.G., L.C., J.C., A.R.E.), Hospital Nacional General Arzobispo Loayza (A.V., Y.P.), Hospital Nacional Hipolito Unanue, El Agustino (E.S.), Dirección de Salud–III Lima Norte (Ministerio de Salud), Rimac (J.C.S.), and Dirección de Salud–IV Lima Este (Ministerio de Salud), El Agustino (C.S., D.L.) — all in Lima, Peru; the Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore (D.A.J.M., C.A.W.E., R.H.G.); and the Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans (R.O.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Moore at the Department of Infectious Diseases and Immunity and Wellcome Centre for Clinical Tropical Medicine, Imperial College London, Faculty of Medicine (Hammersmith Campus), DuCane Rd., London W12 0NN, United Kingdom, or at davidajmoore@msn.com.
- References
References
1
Global tuberculosis control: surveillance, planning, financing. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2006:1-242. (Accessed September 15, 2006, at http://www.who.int/tb/publications/global_report/2006/en/index.html.)
2
The global plan to stop TB, 2006-2015 Geneva: Stop TB Partnership and World Health Organization, 2006:1-172. (Accessed September 15, 2006, at http://www.stoptb.org/globalplan.)
3
Espinal MA ,Kim SJ ,Suarez PG , et al. Standard short-course chemotherapy for drug-resistant tuberculosis: treatment outcomes in 6 countries. JAMA 2000;283:2537-2545
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Chavez Pachas AM ,Blank R ,Smith Fawzi MC ,Bayona J ,Becerra MC ,Mitnick CD . Identifying early treatment failure on category I therapy for pulmonary tuberculosis in Lima Ciudad, Peru. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2004;8:52-58
Web of Science | Medline5
Dowdy DW ,Chaisson RE ,Moulton LH ,Dorman SE . The potential impact of enhanced diagnostic techniques for tuberculosis driven by HIV: a mathematical model. AIDS 2006;20:751-762
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Caviedes L ,Lee TS ,Gilman RH , et al. Rapid, efficient detection and drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in sputum by microscopic observation of broth cultures. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:1203-1208
Web of Science | Medline7
Moore DA ,Mendoza D ,Gilman RH , et al. Microscopic observation drug susceptibility assay, a rapid, reliable diagnostic test for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis suitable for use in resource-poor settings. J Clin Microbiol 2004;42:4432-4437
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Small PM ,Perkins MD . More rigour needed in trials of new diagnostic agents for tuberculosis. Lancet 2000;356:1048-1049
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Suffys P ,Palomino JC ,Cardoso Leao S , et al. Evaluation of the polymerase chain reaction for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2000;4:179-183
Web of Science | Medline10
Tessema TA ,Hamasur B ,Bjun G ,Svenson S ,Bjorvatn B . Diagnostic evaluation of urinary lipoarabinomannan at an Ethiopian tuberculosis centre. Scand J Infect Dis 2001;33:279-284
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Tsubura E ,Yamanaka M ,Sakatani M ,Takashima T ,Maekura R ,Nakatani K . A cooperative clinical study on the evaluation of an antibody detection kit (MycoDot test) for mycobacterial infections. Kekkaku 1997;72:611-615
Medline12
Somi GR ,O'Brien RJ ,Mfinanga GS ,Ipuge YA . Evaluation of the MycoDot test in patients with suspected tuberculosis in a field setting in Tanzania. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 1999;3:231-238
Web of Science | Medline13
Cole RA ,Lu HM ,Shi YZ ,Wang J ,De-Hua T ,Zhou AT . Clinical evaluation of a rapid immunochromatographic assay based on the 38 kDa antigen of Mycobacterium tuberculosis on patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in China. Tuber Lung Dis 1996;77:363-368
CrossRef | Medline14
Reid MC ,Lachs MS ,Feinstein AR . Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research: getting better but still not good. JAMA 1995;274:645-651
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Ransohoff DF ,Feinstein AR . Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1978;299:926-930
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline16
Bossuyt PM ,Reitsma JB ,Bruns DE , et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:40-44
Web of Science | Medline17
Bossuyt PM ,Reitsma JB ,Bruns DE , et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:W1-W12
Medline18
Begg CB . Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 1987;6:411-423
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Walsh A ,McNerney R . Guidelines for establishing trials of new tests to diagnose tuberculosis in endemic countries. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2004;8:609-613
Web of Science | Medline20
Perkins MD ,Kritski AL . Diagnostic testing in the control of tuberculosis. Bull World Health Organ 2002;80:512-513
Web of Science | Medline21
Laboratory services in TB control. Parts I, II, and III. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1998. (Publication no. WHO/tb/98.258.)
22
Park WG ,Bishai WR ,Chaisson RE ,Dorman SE . Performance of the microscopic observation drug susceptibility assay in drug susceptibility testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol 2002;40:4750-4752
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Del Portillo P ,Thomas MC ,Martinez E , et al. Multiprimer PCR system for differential identification of mycobacteria in clinical samples. J Clin Microbiol 1996;34:324-328
Web of Science | Medline24
Bemer P ,Bodmer T ,Munzinger J ,Perrin M ,Vincent V ,Drugeon H . Multicenter evaluation of the MB/BACT system for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol 2004;42:1030-1034
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Barreto AM ,Araujo JB ,de Melo Medeiros RF ,de Souza Caldas PC . Evaluation of indirect susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to the first- and second-line, and alternative drugs by the newer MB/BacT system. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 2003;98:827-830
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Yew WW ,Tong SC ,Lui KS ,Leung SK ,Chau CH ,Wang EP . Comparison of MB/BacT system and agar proportion method in drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2001;39:229-232
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline27
Tortoli E ,Mattei R ,Savarino A ,Bartolini L ,Beer J . Comparison of Mycobacterium tuberculosis susceptibility testing performed with BACTEC 460TB (Becton Dickinson) and MB/BacT (Organon Teknika) systems. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2000;38:83-86
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
Diaz-Infantes MS ,Ruiz-Serrano MJ ,Martinez-Sanchez L ,Ortega A ,Bouza E . Evaluation of the MB/BacT mycobacterium detection system for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:1988-1989
Web of Science | Medline29
Brunello F ,Fontana R . Reliability of the MB/BacT system for testing susceptibility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex isolates to antituberculous drugs. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:872-873
Web of Science | Medline30
Kumar M ,Khan IA ,Verma V ,Qazi GN . Microplate nitrate reductase assay versus Alamar Blue assay for MIC determination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2005;9:939-941
Web of Science | Medline31
Reis RS ,Neves I Jr ,Lourenco SL ,Fonseca LS ,Lourenco MC . Comparison of flow cytometric and Alamar Blue tests with the proportional method for testing susceptibility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to rifampin and isoniazid. J Clin Microbiol 2004;42:2247-2248
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline32
Sungkanuparph S ,Pracharktam R ,Thakkinstian A ,Buabut B ,Kiatatchasai W . Correlation between susceptibility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by microtiter plate Alamar Blue assay and clinical outcomes. J Med Assoc Thai 2002;85:820-824
Medline33
Pracharktam R ,Angkananukool K ,Vibhagool A . In vitro susceptibility testing of levofloxacin and ofloxacin by microtiter plate Alamar Blue against multidrug and non multidrug resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai 2001;84:1241-1245
Medline34
Franzblau SG ,Witzig RS ,McLaughlin JC , et al. Rapid, low-technology MIC determination with clinical Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates by using the microplate Alamar Blue assay. J Clin Microbiol 1998;36:362-366
Web of Science | Medline35
Collins L ,Franzblau SG . Microplate Alamar Blue assay versus BACTEC 460 system for high-throughput screening of compounds against Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium avium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997;41:1004-1009
Web of Science | Medline36
Moore DA ,Caviedes L ,Gilman RH , et al. Infrequent MODS TB culture cross-contamination in a high-burden resource-poor setting. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2006;56:35-43
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline37
Oberhelman RA ,Soto-Castellares G ,Caviedes L , et al. Improved recovery of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from children using the Microscopic Observation Drug Susceptibility (MODS) method. Pediatrics 2006;118:e100-e106
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline38
Perkins MD . New diagnostic tools for tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2000;4:Suppl 2:S182-S188
Web of Science | Medline39
Madison B ,Robinson-Dunn B ,George I , et al. Multicenter evaluation of ethambutol susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by agar proportion and radiometric methods. J Clin Microbiol 2002;40:3976-3979
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline40
Mitnick C ,Bayona J ,Palacios E , et al. Community-based therapy for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Lima, Peru. N Engl J Med 2003;348:119-128
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline41
Shin S ,Furin J ,Bayona J ,Mate K ,Kim JY ,Farmer P . Community-based treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Lima, Peru: 7 years of experience. Soc Sci Med 2004;59:1529-1539
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline42
Tuberculosis bacteriology -- priorities and indications in high prevalence countries: position of the technical staff of the Tuberculosis Division of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2005;9:355-361
Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (98)
Citing Articles
1
Delane Shingadia. (2012) The Diagnosis of Tuberculosis. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 31:3, 302-305
CrossRef2
Nora Engel. (2012) New diagnostics for multi-drug resistant tuberculosis in India: Innovating control and controlling innovation. BioSocieties
CrossRef3
Juan Carlos Palomino. (2012) Current developments and future perspectives for TB diagnostics. Future Microbiology 7:1, 59-71
CrossRef4
M. Bonnet. (2011) Les nouveaux tests diagnostiques de la tuberculose maladie : de la théorie à la pratique dans les pays du Sud. Revue des Maladies Respiratoires 28:10, 1310-1321
CrossRef5
Pratima Dixit, Urmila Singh, Pratibha Sharma, Amita Jain. (2011) Evaluation of nitrate reduction assay, resazurin microtiter assay and microscopic observation drug susceptibility assay for first line antitubercular drug susceptibility testing of clinical isolates of M. tuberculosis. Journal of Microbiological Methods
CrossRef6
A. El Khéchine, M. Drancourt. (2011) Diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in a microbiological laboratory. Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses 41:10, 509-517
CrossRef7
Amy Y. Vittor, Joseph M. Garland, David Schlossberg. (2011) Improving the Diagnosis of Tuberculosis: From QuantiFERON to New Techniques to Diagnose Tuberculosis Infections. Current HIV/AIDS Reports 8:3, 153-163
CrossRef8
Sharon L. Reed, Girmachew Mamo, Elias Gossa, Michele Jasura, Muluwork Getahun, Eshetu Lemma, Christopher Mathews, J. Allen McCutchan. (2011) Improved tuberculosis smear detection in resource-limited settings: Combined bleach concentration and LED fluorescence microscopy. International Health 3:3, 160-164
CrossRef9
Khalid Muzaffar Banday, Kishore Kumar Pasikanti, Eric Chun Yong Chan, Rupak Singla, Kanury Venkata Subba Rao, Virander Singh Chauhan, Ranjan Kumar Nanda. (2011) Use of Urine Volatile Organic Compounds To Discriminate Tuberculosis Patients from Healthy Subjects. Analytical Chemistry 83:14, 5526-5534
CrossRef10
M. L. Wilson. (2011) Recent Advances in the Laboratory Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex and Drug Resistance. Clinical Infectious Diseases 52:11, 1350-1355
CrossRef11
G. COMINA, D. MENDOZA, A. VELAZCO, J. CORONEL, P. SHEEN, R.H. GILMAN, D.A.J. MOORE, M. ZIMIC. (2011) Development of an automated MODS plate reader to detect early growth of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Journal of Microscopy 242:3, 325-330
CrossRef12
Kartik K. Venkatesh, Soumya Swaminathan, Jason R. Andrews, Kenneth H. Mayer. (2011) Tuberculosis and HIV Co-Infection. Drugs 71:9, 1133-1152
CrossRef13
Yajnavalka Banerjee, Varna Taranikanti, Riad Bayoumi. (2011) Assays for drug resistant tuberculosis in high burden countries. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 11:3, 161-162
CrossRef14
D. A. J. Moore, N. S. Shah. (2011) Alternative Methods of Diagnosing Drug Resistance--What Can They Do for Me?. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 204:suppl 4, S1110
CrossRef15
Kogieleum Naidoo, Kasavan Naidoo, Nesri Padayatchi, Quarraisha Abdool Karim. (2011) HIV-Associated Tuberculosis. Clinical and Developmental Immunology 2011, 1-8
CrossRef16
Anita Mashta, Pooja Mishra, Sonia Philipose, S Tamilzhalagan, Hanif Mahmud, Sangeeta Bhaskar, Pramod Upadhyay. (2011) Diagnosis of Tuberculosis : the experience at a specialized diagnostic laboratory. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine 10:1, 16
CrossRef17
S. D. Lawn, R. Wood. (2011) Tuberculosis in Antiretroviral Treatment Services in Resource-Limited Settings: Addressing the Challenges of Screening and Diagnosis. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 204:suppl 4, S1159
CrossRef18
Jeffrey R. Starke, Andrea T. Cruz. 2011. Tuberculosis. , 577-600.
CrossRef19
P. Jain, D. S. Thaler, M. Maiga, G. S. Timmins, W. R. Bishai, G. F. Hatfull, M. H. Larsen, W. R. Jacobs. (2011) Reporter Phage and Breath Tests: Emerging Phenotypic Assays for Diagnosing Active Tuberculosis, Antibiotic Resistance, and Treatment Efficacy. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 204:suppl 4, S1142
CrossRef20
K. Dalhoff, J. Rupp. (2011) Bedrohung durch die HIV/Tuberkulose-Koinfektion. Der Pneumologe 8:1, 32-39
CrossRef21
Betzaida Cuevas-Córdoba, Roberto Zenteno-Cuevas. (2010) Tuberculosis drogorresistente: mecanismos moleculares y métodos diagnósticos. Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica 28:9, 621-628
CrossRef22
Bruno Veigas, Diana Machado, João Perdigão, Isabel Portugal, Isabel Couto, Miguel Viveiros, Pedro V Baptista. (2010) Au-nanoprobes for detection of SNPs associated with antibiotic resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Nanotechnology 21:41, 415101
CrossRef23
Jessica Minion, Erika Leung, Dick Menzies, Madhukar Pai. (2010) Microscopic-observation drug susceptibility and thin layer agar assays for the detection of drug resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 10:10, 688-698
CrossRef24
Giovanni Battista Migliori, Keertan Dheda, Rosella Centis, Peter Mwaba, Matthew Bates, Justin O’Grady, Michael Hoelscher, Alimuddin Zumla. (2010) Review of multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant TB: global perspectives with a focus on sub-Saharan Africa. Tropical Medicine & International Health 15:9, 1052-1066
CrossRef25
Stephen Michael Graham. (2010) Research into tuberculosis diagnosis in children. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 10:9, 581-582
CrossRef26
Richard A Oberhelman, Giselle Soto-Castellares, Robert H Gilman, Luz Caviedes, Maria E Castillo, Lenka Kolevic, Trinidad Del Pino, Mayuko Saito, Eduardo Salazar-Lindo, Eduardo Negron, Sonia Montenegro, V Alberto Laguna-Torres, David AJ Moore, Carlton A Evans. (2010) Diagnostic approaches for paediatric tuberculosis by use of different specimen types, culture methods, and PCR: a prospective case-control study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 10:9, 612-620
CrossRef27
Ben J. Marais, H. Simon Schaaf. (2010) Childhood Tuberculosis: An Emerging and Previously Neglected Problem. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America 24:3, 727-749
CrossRef28
Keertan Dheda, Robin M. Warren, Alimuddin Zumla, Martin P. Grobusch. (2010) Extensively Drug-resistant Tuberculosis: Epidemiology and Management Challenges. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America 24:3, 705-725
CrossRef29
Eun Sun Lee, Chang Min Park, Jin Mo Goo, Jae-Joon Yim, Hye-Ryoun Kim, Hyun Ju Lee, In Sun Lee, Jung-Gi Im. (2010) Computed Tomography Features of Extensively Drug-Resistant Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Non-HIV-Infected Patients. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 34:4, 559-563
CrossRef30
Zarir F Udwadia, Tiyas Sen. (2010) Pleural tuberculosis: an update. Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine 16:4, 399-406
CrossRef31
Charles D. Wells. (2010) Global Impact of Multidrug-Resistant Pulmonary Tuberculosis Among HIV-Infected and Other Immunocompromised Hosts: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Strategies for Management. Current Infectious Disease Reports 12:3, 192-197
CrossRef32
Heather J Zar, Tom G Connell, Mark Nicol. (2010) Diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in children: new advances. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy 8:3, 277-288
CrossRef33
Christoph LANGE, Toru MORI. (2010) Advances in the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Respirology 15:2, 220-240
CrossRef34
H. Simon Schaaf, Anthony P. Moll, Keertan Dheda. (2009) Multidrug- and Extensively Drug-resistant Tuberculosis in Africa and South America: Epidemiology, Diagnosis and Management in Adults and Children. Clinics in Chest Medicine 30:4, 667-683
CrossRef35
Madhukar Pai, Jessica Minion, Hojoon Sohn, Alice Zwerling, Mark D. Perkins. (2009) Novel and Improved Technologies for Tuberculosis Diagnosis: Progress and Challenges. Clinics in Chest Medicine 30:4, 701-716
CrossRef36
Suhail Ahmad, Eiman Mokaddas. (2009) Recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Respiratory Medicine 103:12, 1777-1790
CrossRef37
José M. Porcel. (2009) Tuberculous Pleural Effusion. Lung 187:5, 263-270
CrossRef38
Elvira Richter, Sabine Rüsch-Gerdes, Doris Hillemann. (2009) Drug-susceptibility testing in TB: current status and future prospects. Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine 3:5, 497-510
CrossRef39
Anandi Martin, Krista Fissette, Francis Varaine, Françoise Portaels, Juan Carlos Palomino. (2009) Thin layer agar compared to BACTEC MGIT 960 for early detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Journal of Microbiological Methods 78:1, 107-108
CrossRef40
Sanjay Basu, Alison P. Galvani. (2009) The Evolution of Tuberculosis Virulence. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 71:5, 1073-1088
CrossRef41
Lulette Tricia C. Bravo, Gary W. Procop. (2009) Recent Advances in Diagnostic Microbiology. Seminars in Hematology 46:3, 248-258
CrossRef42
Cabot, Richard C.Harris, Nancy Lee, Shepard, Jo-Anne O., Rosenberg, Eric S., Cort, Alice M., Ebeling, Sally H.Peters, Christine C., Wilson, Douglas, Hurtado, Rocío M., Digumarthy, Subba, . (2009) Case 18-2009. New England Journal of Medicine 360:23, 2456-2464
Full Text43
Mirko Zimic, Jorge Coronel, Robert H. Gilman, Carmen Giannina Luna, Walter H. Curioso, David A.J. Moore. (2009) Can the power of mobile phones be used to improve tuberculosis diagnosis in developing countries?. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 103:6, 638-640
CrossRef44
R. A. Devasia, A. Blackman, C. May, S. Eden, T. Smith, N. Hooper, F. Maruri, C. Stratton, A. Shintani, T. R. Sterling. (2009) Fluoroquinolone resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: an assessment of MGIT 960, MODS and nitrate reductase assay and fluoroquinolone cross-resistance. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 63:6, 1173-1178
CrossRef45
S. Basu, G. H. Friedland, J. Medlock, J. R. Andrews, N. S. Shah, N. R. Gandhi, A. Moll, P. Moodley, A. W. Sturm, A. P. Galvani. (2009) Averting epidemics of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:18, 7672-7677
CrossRef46
Melissa R Nyendak, Deborah A Lewinsohn, David M Lewinsohn. (2009) New diagnostic methods for tuberculosis. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 22:2, 174-182
CrossRef47
Jennifer Lighter, Mona Rigaud. (2009) Diagnosing Childhood Tuberculosis: Traditional and Innovative Modalities. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care 39:3, 61-88
CrossRef48
Ted Cohen, Christopher Dye, Caroline Colijn, Brian Williams, Megan Murray. (2009) Mathematical models of the epidemiology and control of drug-resistant TB. Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine 3:1, 67-79
CrossRef49
Sheela Shenoi, Gerald Friedland. (2009) Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis: A New Face to an Old Pathogen. Annual Review of Medicine 60:1, 307-320
CrossRef50
Sheela Shenoi, Scott Heysell, Anthony Moll, Gerald Friedland. (2009) Multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: consequences for the global HIV community. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 22:1, 11-17
CrossRef51
Mandeep Jassal, William R Bishai. (2009) Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 9:1, 19-30
CrossRef52
Priya Sampathkumar. (2009) Managing Health Risks of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis. Clinical Pulmonary Medicine 16:1, 10-15
CrossRef53
Alonso Soto, Juan Agapito, Carlos Acuña-Villaorduña, Lely Solari, Frine Samalvides, Eduardo Gotuzzo. (2009) Evaluation of the performance of two liquid-phase culture media for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in a national hospital in Lima, Peru. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 13:1, 40-45
CrossRef54
S. BASU, A. P. GALVANI. (2008) The transmission and control of XDR TB in South Africa: an operations research and mathematical modelling approach. Epidemiology and Infection 136:12, 1585
CrossRef55
Edward D Chan, Michael D Iseman. (2008) Multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: a review. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 21:6, 587-595
CrossRef56
Ritu Banerjee, Gisela F Schecter, Jennifer Flood, Travis C Porco. (2008) Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: new strains, new challenges. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy 6:5, 713-724
CrossRef57
Juan Carlos Palomino, Anandi Martin, Andrea Von Groll, Francoise Portaels. (2008) Rapid culture-based methods for drug-resistance detection in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Journal of Microbiological Methods 75:2, 161-166
CrossRef58
Y. Ben Amor, M. Fraden, J. Ruxin. (2008) Reversing the tide of tuberculosis in India: complementing microscopy with line probe assays. Global Public Health 3:4, 399-416
CrossRef59
Louis Grandjean, David AJ Moore. (2008) Tuberculosis in the developing world: recent advances in diagnosis with special consideration of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 21:5, 454-461
CrossRef60
A. Thomas Pezzella, Wentao Fang. (2008) Surgical Aspects of Thoracic Tuberculosis: A Contemporary Review—Part 1. Current Problems in Surgery 45:10, 675-758
CrossRef61
Neil W. SCHLUGER. (2008) Advances in the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Respirology 13, S73-S80
CrossRef62
Ioannis K. Neonakis, Zoe Gitti, Elias Krambovitis, Demetrios A. Spandidos. (2008) Molecular diagnostic tools in mycobacteriology. Journal of Microbiological Methods 75:1, 1-11
CrossRef63
Sandra M Newton, Andrew J Brent, Suzanne Anderson, Elizabeth Whittaker, Beate Kampmann. (2008) Paediatric tuberculosis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 8:8, 498-510
CrossRef64
La-ong Srisuwanvilai, Patama Monkongdee, Laura Jean Podewils, Keerataya Ngamlert, Vallerut Pobkeeree, Panitchaya Puripokai, Photjanart Kanjanamongkolsiri, Wonchat Subhachaturas, Pasakorn Akarasewi, Charles D. Wells, Jordan W. Tappero, Jay K. Varma. (2008) Performance of the BACTEC MGIT 960 compared with solid media for detection of Mycobacterium in Bangkok, Thailand. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 61:4, 402-407
CrossRef65
Joseph Keane, Barry Bresnihan. (2008) Tuberculosis reactivation during immunosuppressive therapy in rheumatic diseases: diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Current Opinion in Rheumatology 20:4, 443-449
CrossRef66
I. Pérez-Martínez, A. Ponce-De-León, M. Bobadilla, N. Villegas-Sepúlveda, M. Pérez-García, J. Sifuentes-Osornio, J. A. González-y-Merchand, T. Estrada-García. (2008) A novel identification scheme for genus Mycobacterium, M. tuberculosis complex, and seven mycobacteria species of human clinical impact. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 27:6, 451-459
CrossRef67
Wendy C Ziai. (2008) New diagnostic tools for central nervous system infection. Current Opinion in Neurology 21:3, 338-341
CrossRef68
Ben J. Marais. (2008) Tuberculosis in children. Pediatric Pulmonology 43:4, 322-329
CrossRef69
J Lucian Davis, Matthew Fei, Laurence Huang. (2008) Respiratory infection complicating HIV infection. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 21:2, 184-190
CrossRef70
M. Tovar, M. J. Siedner, R. H. Gilman, C. Santillan, L. Caviedes, T. Valencia, O. Jave, A. Rod Escombe, D. A. J. Moore, C. A. Evans. (2008) Improved Diagnosis of Pleural Tuberculosis Using the Microscopic-Observation Drug-Susceptibility Technique. Clinical Infectious Diseases 46:6, 909-912
CrossRef71
Kelsey D.J. Jones, Therese Hesketh, John Yudkin. (2008) Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in sub-Saharan Africa: an emerging public-health concern. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 102:3, 219-224
CrossRef72
J. B. S. Coulter. (2008) Diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in young children. Annals of Tropical Paediatrics: International Child Health 28:1, 3-12
CrossRef73
Chiang Chen-Yuan, Donald A Enarson, Paula I Fujiwara, Armand Van Deun, Lee Jen-Jyh. (2008) Strategies of extensively drug-resistant TB risk management for health workers and other care givers. Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine 2:1, 47-54
CrossRef74
M.G. Bissell. (2008) Microscopic-Observation Drug-Susceptibility Assay for the Diagnosis of TB. Yearbook of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 2008, 340-342
CrossRef75
J.A. Stockman. (2008) Microscopic-Observation Drug-Susceptibility Assay for the Diagnosis of TB. Yearbook of Pediatrics 2008, 265-267
CrossRef76
Howard M. Shapiro, Nancy G. Perlmutter. (2008) Killer applications: Toward affordable rapid cell-based diagnostics for malaria and tuberculosis. Cytometry Part B: Clinical Cytometry 74B:S1, S152-S164
CrossRef77
Gary Maartens, Robert J Wilkinson. (2007) Tuberculosis. The Lancet 370:9604, 2030-2043
CrossRef78
Jason R. Andrews, N. Sarita Shah, Neel Gandhi, Tony Moll, Gerald Friedland, . (2007) Multidrug‐Resistant and Extensively Drug‐Resistant Tuberculosis: Implications for the HIV Epidemic and Antiretroviral Therapy Rollout in South Africa. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 196:s3, S482-S490
CrossRef79
Sanjay Basu, Jason R Andrews, Eric M Poolman, Neel R Gandhi, N Sarita Shah, Anthony Moll, Prashini Moodley, Alison P Galvani, Gerald H Friedland. (2007) Prevention of nosocomial transmission of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in rural South African district hospitals: an epidemiological modelling study. The Lancet 370:9597, 1500-1507
CrossRef80
Alberto Matteelli, Giovanni Battista Migliori, Daniela Cirillo, Rosella Centis, Enrico Girard, Mario Raviglione. (2007) Multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis : epidemiology and control. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy 5:5, 857-871
CrossRef81
David AJ Moore, Martha H Roper. (2007) Diagnosis of smear-negative tuberculosis in people with HIV/AIDS. The Lancet 370:9592, 1033-1034
CrossRef82
Wendy Gerstein. (2007) One Patient, Many Lessons. Southern Medical Journal 100:9, 865-866
CrossRef83
David Andresen. (2007) Microbiological diagnostic procedures in respiratory infections: mycobacterial infections. Paediatric Respiratory Reviews 8:3, 221-230
CrossRef84
Sten H. Vermund, Naoki Yamamoto. (2007) Co-infection with human immunodeficiency virus and tuberculosis in Asia. Tuberculosis 87, S18-S25
CrossRef85
C. Dukes Hamilton, T. R. Sterling, H. M. Blumberg, M. Leonard, J. McAuley, D. Schlossberg, J. Stout, G. Huitt. (2007) Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis: Are We Learning from History or Repeating It?. Clinical Infectious Diseases 45:3, 338-342
CrossRef86
Nabin K Shrestha. (2007) Rapid diagnostic testing for mycobacterial infections. Future Microbiology 2:4, 397-408
CrossRef87
Joel D. Ernst, Giraldina Trevejo-Nuñez, Niaz Banaiee. (2007) Genomics and the evolution, pathogenesis, and diagnosis of tuberculosis. Journal of Clinical Investigation 117:7, 1738-1745
CrossRef88
Charles D. Wells, J. Peter Cegielski, Lisa J. Nelson, Kayla F. Laserson, Timothy H. Holtz, Alyssa Finlay, Kenneth G. Castro, Karin Weyer. (2007) HIV Infection and Multidrug‐Resistant Tuberculosis—The Perfect Storm. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 196:s1, S86-S107
CrossRef89
Mark D. Perkins, Jane Cunningham. (2007) Facing the Crisis: Improving the Diagnosis of Tuberculosis in the HIV Era. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 196:s1, S15-S27
CrossRef90
Ben J. Marais, Madhukar Pai. (2007) New approaches and emerging technologies in the diagnosis of childhood tuberculosis. Paediatric Respiratory Reviews 8:2, 124-133
CrossRef91
Jennifer Furin. (2007) The clinical management of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine 13:3, 212-217
CrossRef92
G. Laifer, S. Bassetti. (2007) Diagnostik der pulmonalen Tuberkulose beim Erwachsenen. Der Internist 48:5, 489-496
CrossRef93
David AJ Moore. (2007) Future prospects for the MODS assay in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis diagnosis. Future Microbiology 2:2, 97-101
CrossRef94
Emma Marris. (2007) From TB tests, just a 'yes or no' answer, please. Nature Medicine 13:3, 267-267
CrossRef95
(2007) MODS Assay for the Diagnosis of TB. New England Journal of Medicine 356:2, 188-189
Full Text96
Jae Joon Yim. (2007) Recent Advances in Research for Tuberculosis. Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases 62:6, 461
CrossRef97
(2006) News In brief. Nature Medicine 12:11, 1226-1227
CrossRef98
Iseman, Michael D., Heifets, Leonid B., . (2006) Rapid Detection of Tuberculosis and Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis. New England Journal of Medicine 355:15, 1606-1608
Full Text
- Letters
