Infection

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 216–221 | Cite as

Evaluation of two commercial amplification assays for detection ofMycobacterium tuberculosis complex in respiratory specimens

  • Manca Žolnir-Dovč
  • Alenka Rus
  • M. Poljak
  • Katja Seme
  • Tatjana Avšič-Županc
Originalia

Summary

To evaluate the usefulness of two standardized commercially available amplification assays for the detection ofMycobacterium tuberculosis: Amplicor® test (Roche) and MTD-Amplified direct test (Gen-Probe) a total of 281 respiratory specimens from 198 patients with symptoms of pulmonary diseases were examined and compared with conventional methods. Fifty-seven specimens were positive and 218 negative by both amplification assays. Three specimens were reactive by Amplicor® only, and three by MTD only. In comparison with culture, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 96.0, 94.8, 80.0, and 99.1%, respectively, for the Amplicor® test; the corresponding values were 94.0, 94.4, 78.3, and 98.6%, respectively, for the MTD. However, when 28 specimens from 14 patients on antituberculous therapy were excluded the improvement in PPV and specificity of both assays was obtained. In conclusion, both commercially available amplification tests are almost equally sensitive and specific and are suitable for the implementation in daily routine work in the specialized clinical laboratories.

Bewertung zweier kommerzieller Amplifikationsassays für den Nachweis vonMycobacterium tuberculosis complex in Proben aus den Atemwegen

Zusammenfassung

Um die Brauchbarkeit zweier standardisierter, kommerziell erhältlicher Amplifikationsassays für den Nachweis vonMycobacterium tuberculosis (Amplicor® Test (Roche und MTD Amplified Direct Test (Gen-Probe) zu beurteilen, wurden insgesamt 281 Proben aus den Atemwegen von 198 Patienten mit Symptomen einer Lungenerkrankung vergleichend mit konventionellen Methoden untersucht. 57 Proben waren positiv und 218 in beiden Amplifikationsassays negativ. Drei Proben waren nur mit Amplicor® positiv, drei nur mit MTD. Im Vergleich zur Kultur ergab sich eine Sensitivtät von 96,0%, Spezifität von 94,8%, ein positiver prädiktiver Wert von 80,0% und ein negativer prädikativer Wert von 99,1% für den Amplicor® Test. Die entsprechenden Werte für den MTD-Test sind 94,0, 94,4, 78,3 und 98,6%. Wenn man jedoch 28 Proben von 14 Patienten, die unter tuberkulostatischer Therapie standen, ausschließt, erhöhen sich der positive prädiktive Wert und die Spezifität bei beiden Testsystemen. Es folgt, daß beide kommerziell erhältlichen Amplifikationstests an Sensitivität und Spezifität nahezu gleich sind und sich für die Anwendung in der täglichen Routinearbeit in klinischen Speziallabors eignen.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Crawford, J. T. New technologies in the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Semin. Respir. Infect. 9 (1994) 62–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wolinsky, E. Conventional diagnostic methods for tuberculosis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 19 (1994) 396–401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Salfinger, M., Morris, A. J. The role of the microbiology laboratory in diagnosing mycobacterial diseases. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 101 (1994) S6-S13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bockstahler, L. E. Overview of international PCR standardization efforts. PCR Methods Applic. 3 (1994) 263–267.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Noordhoek, G. T., Kolk, A. H. J., Bjune, G., Catty, D., Dale, J. W., Fine, P. E. M., Godfrey-Faussett, P., Cho, S.-N., Shinnick, T., Svenson, S. B., Wilson, S., van Embden, J. D. A. Sensitivity and specificity of PCR for detection ofMycobacterium tuberculosis: a blind comparison study among seven laboratories. J. Clin. Microbiol. 32 (1994) 277–284.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vestal, A. L. Procedures for the isolation and identification of mycobacteria. Publication no. 77-8230. Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta 1977, pp. 33–90.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tacquet, A., Tison, F. L'utilisation des détergents pour l'isolement des mycobactéries. Bull. Int. Union Tuberc. 38 (1966) 59–67.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Longo, M. C., Berninger, M. S., Hartley, L. J. Use of uracil DNA glycosylase to control carry-over contamination in polymerase chain reaction. Gene 93 (1990) 125–128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jonas, V., Alden, M. J., Curry, J. I., Kamisango, K., Knott, C. A., Lankford, R., Wolfe, J. M., Moore, D. F. Detection and identification ofMycobacterium tuberculosis directly from sputum sediments by amplification of rRNA. J. Clin. Microbiol. 31 (1993) 2410–2416.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Böddinghaus, B., Rogall, T., Flohr, T., Blöcker, H., Böttger, E. C. Detection and identification of mycobacteria by amplification of rRNA. J. Clin. Microbiol. 28 (1990) 1751–1759.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walker, G. T., Fraiser, M. S., Schram, J. L., Little, M. C., Nadeau, J. G., Malinowsky, D. P. Strand displacement amplification — an isothermal,in vitro DNA amplification technique. Nucleic Acids Res. 20 (1992) 1691–1696.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wolcott, M. J. Advances in nucleic acid-based detection methods. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 5 (1992) 370–386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brisson-Noël, A., Gicquel, B., Lecossier, D., Lévy-Frébault, V., Nassif, X., Hance, A. J. Rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis by amplification of mycobacterial DNA in clinical samples. Lancet ii (1989) 1069–1071.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hance, A. J., Grandchamp, B., Lévy-Frébault, V., Lecossier, D., Rauzier, J., Bocard, D., Gicquele, B. Detection and identification of mycobacteria by amplification of mycobacterial DNA. Mol. Microbiol. 3 (1989) 843–849.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manjunath, N., Shankar, P., Rajan, L., Bhargava, A., Saluja, S., Shriniwas: Evaluation of a polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Tubercle 72 (1991) 21–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sjöbring, U., Mecklenburg, M., Andersen, A. B., Miörner, H. Polymerase chain reaction for detection ofMycobacterium tuberculosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 28 (1990) 2200–2204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soini, H., Skurnik, M., Liippo, K., Tala, E., Viljanen, M. K. Detection and identification of mycobacteria by amplification of a segment of the gene coding for the 32-kilodalton protein. J. Clin. Microbiol. 30 (1992) 2025–2028.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zolg, J. W., Philippi-Schulz, S. The superoxide dismutase gene, a target for detection and identification of mycobacteria by PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 32 (1994) 2801–2812.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eisenach, K. D., Cave, M. D., Bates, J. H., Crawford, J. T. Polymerase chain reaction amplification of a repetitive DNA sequence specific forMycobacterium tuberculosis. J. Infect. Dis. 161 (1990) 977–981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thierry, D., Brisson-Noël, A., Vincent-Lévy-Frébault, V., Nguyen, S., Guesdon, J.-L., Gicquel, B. Characterization of aMycobacterium tuberculosis insertion sequence, IS 6110, and its application in diagnosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 28 (1990) 2668–2673.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pfyffer, G. E., Kissling, P., Wirth, R., Weber, R. Direct detection ofMycobacterium tuberculosis complex in respiratory specimens by a target-amplified test system. J. Clin. Microbiol. 32 (1994) 918–923.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abe, C., Hirano, K., Wada, M., Kazumi, Y., Takahashi, M., Fukasawa, Y., Yoshimura, T., Miyagi, C., Goto, S. Detection ofMycobacterium tuberculosis in clinical specimens by polymerase chain reaction and Gen-Probe amplifiedMycobacterium tuberculosis direct test. J. Clin. Microbiol. 31 (1993) 3270–3274.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller, N., Hernandez, S. G., Cleary, T. J. Evaluation of Gen-Probe amplifiedMycobacterium tuberculosis direct test and PCR for direct detection ofMycobacterium tuberculosis in clinical specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 32 (1994) 393–397.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© MMV Medizin Verlag GmbH München 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manca Žolnir-Dovč
    • 1
  • Alenka Rus
  • M. Poljak
    • 2
  • Katja Seme
    • 2
  • Tatjana Avšič-Županc
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Respiratory DiseasesGolnik
  2. 2.Medical Faculty of LjubljanaInstitute of MicrobiologyLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations