Evaluation of the fully automated BACTEC MGIT 960 system for testing susceptibility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to pyrazinamide, streptomycin, isoniazid, rifampin, and ethambutol and comparison with the radiometric BACTEC 460TB method
Evaluation of the fully automated BACTEC MGIT 960 system for testing susceptibility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to pyrazinamide, streptomycin, isoniazid, rifampin, and ethambutol and comparison with the radiometric BACTEC 460TB method
复制标题
DOI：
10.1128/jcm.42.3.1109-1114.2004
复制
发表时间：
2004-03-01
影响因子：
9.4
通讯作者：
Piccoli, P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Scarparo, C;Ricordi, P;Piccoli, P
使用 100 个临床分离株评估了全自动 BACTEC MGIT 960 (M960) 系统测试结核分枝杆菌对链霉素 (SM)、异烟肼 (INH)、利福平 (RMP)、乙胺丁醇 (EMB) 和吡嗪酰胺 (PZA) 敏感性的性能，并与放射性 BACTEC 460TB (B460) 进行比较系统。琼脂比例法和 B460 系统被用作参考方法，分别解决了 SM、INH、RMP 和 EMB（称为 SIRE 的组合）和 PZA 不一致的结果。 SIRE 的总体协议率为 96.3%，PZA 的总体协议率为 92%。对于 SIRE，总共发现了 26 个差异，并得到了解决，其中 8 例采用 M960 系统，18 例采用 B460 系统。 M960系统产生8个非常严重错误（VME）和10个严重错误（ME），而B460系统显示4个VME和4个ME。没有发现统计学上的显着差异。两个系统均表现出优异的性能，但在 EMB 和 SM 的临界浓度下，M960 系统观察到了更高数量的 VME。对于 PZA，总共观察到 8 个差异，并在 1 个案例中解决了 M960 系统，在 7 个案例中解决了 B460 系统；没有发现统计学上的显着差异。 M960系统显示了四个VME和三个ME。 M960 系统报告总体 PZA 结果和耐药结果的平均时间分别为 8.2 天和 9.8 天，B460 系统分别为 7.4 天和 8.1 天。发现了统计学上的显着差异。 M960 系统报告 SIRE 结果的平均时间为 8.3 天，B460 系统为 8.2 天。没有发现统计学上的显着差异。由于污染，测试了 12 株 SIRE 敏感性的菌株和测试了 7 株 PZA 敏感性的菌株已被重新处理。总之，M960 系统可以作为 B460 的有效替代品，用于结核分枝杆菌药敏试验；然而，测试中频繁出现的污染问题有待改善。
The performance of the fully automated BACTEC MGIT 960 (M960) system for the testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis susceptibility to streptomycin (SM), isoniazid (INH), rifampin (RMP), ethambutol (EMB), and pyrazinamide (PZA) was evaluated with 100 clinical isolates and compared to that of the radiometric BACTEC 460TB (B460) system. The agar proportion method and the B460 system were used as reference methods to resolve the discordant results for SM, INH, RMP, and EMB (a combination known as SIRE) and PZA, respectively. The overall agreements were 96.3% for SIRE and 92% for PZA. For SIRE, a total of 26 discrepancies were found and were resolved in favor of the M960 system in 8 cases and in favor of the B460 system in 18 cases. The M960 system produced 8 very major errors (VME) and 10 major errors (ME), while the B460 system showed 4 VME and 4 ME. No statistically significant differences were found. Both systems exhibited excellent performance, but a higher number of VME was observed with the M960 system at the critical concentrations of EMB and SM. For PZA, a total of eight discrepancies were observed and were resolved in favor of the M960 system in one case and in favor of the B460 system in seven cases; no statistically significant differences were found. The M960 system showed four VME and three ME. The mean times to report overall PZA results and resistant results were 8.2 and 9.8 days, respectively, for the M960 system and 7.4 and 8.1 days, respectively, for the B460 system. Statistically significant differences were found. The mean times to report SIRE results were 8.3 days for the M960 system and 8.2 days for the B460 system. No statistically significant differences were found. Twelve strains tested for SIRE susceptibility and seven strains tested for PZA susceptibility had been reprocessed because of contamination. In conclusion, the M960 system can represent a valid alternative to the B460 for M. tuberculosis susceptibility testing; however, the frequent contamination of the tests needs to be improved.