Performance of Cepheid ® Xpert MTB/RIF ® and TB-Biochip ® MDR in two regions of Russia with a high prevalence of drug-resistant tuberculosis.

The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of Cepheid® Xpert MTB/RIF® ("Xpert") and TB-Biochip® MDR ("TB-Biochip"). Sputum specimens from adults with presumptive tuberculosis (TB) were homogenized and split for: (1) direct Xpert and microscopy, and (2) concentration for Xpert, microscopy, culture [Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) solid media and Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube® (MGIT)], indirect drug susceptibility testing (DST) using the absolute concentration method and MGIT, and TB-Biochip. In total, 109 of 238 (45.8 %) specimens were culture-positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC), and, of these, 67 isolates were rifampicin resistant (RIF-R) by phenotypic DST and 64/67 (95.5 %) were isoniazid resistant (INH-R). Compared to culture of the same specimen, a single direct Xpert was more sensitive for detecting MTBC [95.3 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI), 90.0-98.3 %] than direct (59.6 %, 95 % CI, 50.2-68.5 %) or concentrated smear (85.3 %, 95 % CI, 77.7-91.1 %) or LJ culture (80.8 %, 95 % CI, 72.4-87.5 %); the specificity was 86.0 % (95 % CI, 78.9-91.3 %). Compared with MGIT DST, Xpert correctly identified 98.2 % (95 % CI, 91.5-99.9 %) of RIF-R and 95.5 % (95 % CI, 85.8-99.2 %) of RIF-susceptible (RIF-S) specimens. In a subset of 104 specimens, the sensitivity of TB-Biochip for MTBC detection compared to culture was 97.3 % (95 % CI, 91.0-99.5 %); the specificity was 78.1 % (95 % CI, 61.5-89.9 %). TB-Biochip correctly identified 100 % (95 % CI, 94.2-100 %) of RIF-R, 94.7 % (95 % CI, 76.7-99.7 %) of RIF-S, 98.2 % (95 % CI, 91.4-99.9 %) of INH-R, and 78.6 % (95 % CI, 52.1-94.2 %) of INH-S specimens compared to MGIT DST. Xpert and Biochip were similar in accuracy for detecting MTBC and RIF resistance compared to conventional culture methods.

[Role of health care facilities in verifying the diagnosis of respiratory tuberculosis by laboratory methods].

Reasons for laboratory misdiagnosis that is observed in general health care network (GHCN) and penitentiaries were studied. The clinical efficiency of the diagnosis of tuberculosis in the GHCN by the Ziehl-Neelsen method is largely determined by three major factors, each of which is fundamentally important in assessing the result. The first factor is the adequacy of making up a cohort of patients having the symptoms of productive cough in the course of 2-3 weeks or more who are to be examined for tuberculosis by laboratory studies. The second is the quality of a diagnostic material. The third is the quality of laboratory specialists' work. The paper shows it necessary to implement programs for the internal control and external assessment of the quality of laboratory studies and to optimize (centralize) the activities of laboratories under the conditions of a regional network.