JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ådjers-Koskela, K.
Right arrow Articles by Katila, M.-L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ådjers-Koskela, K.
Right arrow Articles by Katila, M.-L.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, March 2003, p. 1235-1239, Vol. 41, No. 3
0095-1137/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.3.1235-1239.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Susceptibility Testing with the Manual Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) and the MGIT 960 System Provides Rapid and Reliable Verification of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis

Kati Ådjers-Koskela{dagger} and Marja-Leena Katila*

Department of Clinical Microbiology, Kuopio University Hospital, 70211 Kuopio, Finland

Received 30 August 2002/ Returned for modification 25 October 2002/ Accepted 20 December 2002

The objective of the study was to compare the manual Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) method and the BACTEC MGIT 960 system to the BACTEC 460 method for susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The evaluation was based on testing of 36 M. tuberculosis strains with various susceptibilities to isoniazid (INH), rifampin (RMP), ethambutol (EMB), and streptomycin (SM). In addition, five of the strains generating discrepant results in testing for EMB were analyzed for heteroresistance. For INH, the susceptibility test results obtained by the MGIT 960 and the manual MGIT systems agreed with the BACTEC 460 results in 94 and 97% of the cases, respectively. The results of susceptibility to RMP were all in agreement. For SM, 78 and 72% of the results obtained by the MGIT 960 and the manual MGIT systems, respectively, agreed with the BACTEC 460 results. In contrast, less than 80% of the results for susceptibility to EMB obtained by the two MGIT methods agreed with the BACTEC 460 results. All five strains analyzed for EMB heteroresistance were found to consist of resistant and susceptible subpopulations. The average turnaround times were 6.4 days for the MGIT 960 system, 6.5 for the manual MGIT system, and 8.7 days for the BACTEC 460 method. Both MGIT methods can be regarded as accurate and rapid alternatives to the BACTEC 460 method for detection of strains resistant to INH and RMP. However, more studies are needed for solving the problems associated with susceptibility testing to EMB and SM.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Clinical Microbiology, Kuopio University Hospital, P.O. Box 1777, 70211 Kuopio, Finland. Phone: 358-17-17 3210. Fax: 358-17-17 3202. E-mail: marja-leena.katila{at}kuh.fi.

{dagger} Present address: Finnish Lung Health Association, 00250 Helsinki, Finland.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, March 2003, p. 1235-1239, Vol. 41, No. 3
0095-1137/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.3.1235-1239.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2003 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.