Rapid Extraction Method of Mycobacterium ulcerans DNA from Clinical Samples of Suspected Buruli Ulcer Patients

Comparative Performance of Line Probe Assay and GeneXpert in the Detection of Rifampicin Monoresistance in a TB-Endemic African Country

Rapid, accurate and reliable assays are required for timely detection of drug-resistant tuberculosis and early initiation of second-line TB treatment as well as to minimize transmission of resistant strains. This study assessed diagnostic performance characteristics of two rapid molecular assays, line probe assay (LPA) and GeneXpert (MTB/RIF), in the detection rifampicin monoresistance using the phenotypic proportion method on Lowenstein−Jensen media as the gold standard. This study involved a total of 357 isolates, 74 rifampicin-resistant and 283 rifampicin-susceptible, collected at the Central Tuberculosis Reference Laboratory (CTRL) in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, between 2016 and 2019. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were used to assess the performance characteristics of the two assays while kappa coefficient was used to determine agreement of test results. The receiver operating curve (ROC) was used to determine the discriminatory ability of the test in distinguishing resistant and susceptible TB isolates. Our results showed that GeneXpert had sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of 93.2, 82.7, 58.5 and 97.9%, respectively; the corresponding performance for LPA was 86.5, 97.5, 90.1 and 96.5%, respectively. Compared with conventional phenotypic DST results, GeneXpert had a moderate agreement (kappa 0.621, p < 0.001), while LPA had high agreement (0.853, p < 0.001). LPA showed an accuracy of 95.2% compared to GeneXpert’s 84.9%. ROC curve depicted the ability of the tests to distinguish rifampicin-sensitive and rifampicin-resistant strains to be 87.9% for GeneXpert and 92.0% for LPA. Our results indicate the superiority of LPA over GeneXpert regarding detection of rifampicin monoresistance. However, logistic challenges such as longer turnaround time and need for skilled laboratory personnel may limit its use.

Point-Of-Care or Point-Of-Need Diagnostic Tests: Time to Change Outbreak Investigation and Pathogen Detection

In the recent years, the progress of international trade and travel has led to an increased risk of emerging infections. Around 75 percent of the pathogens causing these infections are of animal origin. Point-of-care tests (POCT) and point-of-need tests (PONT) have been established in order to directly provide accurate and rapid diagnostics at field level, the patient bed-side or at the site of outbreaks. These assays can help physicians and decision makers to take the right action without delay. Typically, POCT and PONT rely on genomic identification of pathogens or track their immunological fingerprint. Recently, protocols for metagenomic diagnostics in the field have been developed. In this review, we give an overview of the latest developments in portable diagnostic methods. In addition, four mobile platforms for the implementation of these techniques at point-of-care and point-of-need are described. These approaches can provide reliable diagnostics and surveillance, especially in low resource settings as well as at the level of one health.