Conventional and molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis in homeless patients in Budapest, Hungary.

In Hungary the incidence of tuberculosis among the homeless population was 676 per 100,000 in 2002. Sixty-nine percent (140 patients) of all homeless tuberculosis patients were notified in Budapest (the capital). Therefore, a retrospective study that included 66 homeless tuberculosis patients notified in Budapest in 2002 was conducted to determine the rate of recent transmission of the disease and medical risk factors and to identify transmission pathways by means of conventional and molecular epidemiologic methods. IS6110 DNA fingerprinting revealed that 71.2% of the isolates could be clustered. Thirty-four (51.5%) patients belonged to five major clusters (size, from 4 to 11 individuals), and 13 (19.7%) belonged to six smaller clusters. Additional analysis of patient records found that 2 (18%) of the 11 patients in cluster A, 3 (37.5%) of the 8 patients in cluster B, and 2 (33%) of the 6 patients in cluster C were residents of the same three homeless shelters during the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Review of the database of the National Tuberculosis Surveillance Center (NTSC) revealed that 21.2% of the cases have not been reported to the NTSC. These findings indicate that the screening and treatment of tuberculosis among the homeless need to be strengthened and also warrant the review of environmental control steps in public shelters. Improvement of adherence of clinicians to surveillance reporting regulations is also necessary.

Use of molecular methods to identify the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) and other mycobacterial species and to detect rifampin resistance in MTBC isolates following growth detection with the BACTEC MGIT 960 system.

A prospective study was organized by using a total of 1,585 consecutive clinical specimens to determine whether biomass obtained from positive growth in the MGIT 960 system could be used directly in AccuProbe DNA hybridization tests, the PCR-based Inno-LiPA Rif.TB (LiPA) assay, and a PCR-based DNA sequencing of the rpoB gene for the rapid identification of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) and other mycobacterial species and for the determination of rifampin (RIF) resistance in MTBC strains. The results were compared to routine culture, identification, and susceptibility testing techniques performed on the same samples. The study results revealed that the DNA AccuProbe assay (on the day of growth positivity) readily identified 95.7%, the LiPA assay readily identified 98.6%, and rpoB sequencing readily identified 97.1% of the 70 MTBC isolates from mycobacterial growth indicator tubes (MGIT). In addition, application of the LiPA for the identification and RIF susceptibility testing of the MTBC in growth-positive MGIT resulted in a turnaround time of less than 2 weeks after specimen receipt. Although DNA sequencing of rpoB required a slightly longer (16 days) turnaround time, this method was capable of identifying several species of nontuberculous mycobacteria in addition to identifying MTBC and determining RIF susceptibility or resistance. The molecular methods were also found to rapidly identify RIF-susceptible and -resistant MTBC in two of the three mixed mycobacterial cultures weeks earlier than conventional methods. In conclusion, the biomass obtained in MGIT at the time of growth positivity in the 960 system is sufficient for use in all three molecular tests, and this approach can reduce the turnaround time for reporting results.

Laboratory diagnosis of nontuberculous mycobacteria.

In conclusion, it is important to realize that there is no "stand alone" assay for the identification of NTM. Many new species may not be recognized in all assays. Newer molecular tests are more accurate for identification than phenotypic tests and have significantly improved turnaround time. Clinical significance of an isolate should be determined, however, before committing resources for the identification of a mycobacterial isolate to the species level. In addition, there are significant differences in the range and quality of services provided by different laboratories. Today, techniques and equipment are increasingly complex and costly, making it more difficult to upgrade every local laboratory to perform these assays. But because specimen delivery and communication of results can be rapidly and easily achieved, utilization of reference laboratories for rarely performed sophisticated tests is a more practical approach.