Comparison of GeneXpert and line probe assay for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin-mono resistance at the National Tuberculosis Reference Laboratory, Kenya.
S A Aricha, L Kingwara, N W Mwirigi, L Chaba, T Kiptai, J Wahogo, J S Otwabe, P O Onyango, M Karanja, C Ayieko, S W Matu
Author Information
S A Aricha: School of Physical and Biological Sciences, Maseno University, Kisumu, Kenya.
L Kingwara: National Public Health Laboratories, Nairobi, Kenya. leonard.kingwara@gmail.com.
N W Mwirigi: National Public Health Laboratories, Nairobi, Kenya.
L Chaba: Strathmore University, Nairobi, Kenya.
T Kiptai: Amref Health Africa, Nairobi, Kenya.
J Wahogo: National Public Health Laboratories, Nairobi, Kenya.
J S Otwabe: Kisii teaching and Referral Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya.
P O Onyango: School of Physical and Biological Sciences, Maseno University, Kisumu, Kenya.
M Karanja: National AIDS and STI Control Program, Nairobi, Kenya.
C Ayieko: School of Physical and Biological Sciences, Maseno University, Kisumu, Kenya.
S W Matu: Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
BACKGROUND: The dual challenge of low diagnostic sensitivity of microscopy test and technical challenge of performing a TB culture test poses a problem for case detection and initiation of Tuberculosis (TB) second-line treatment. There is thus need for a rapid, reliable and easily accessible assay. This comparative analysis was performed to assess diagnostic performance characteristics of GeneXpert MTB/RIF and Line Probe Assay (LPA). METHODS: Three hundred twenty nine sputum samples of patients across the 47 counties in Kenya suspected to have drug resistant TB were picked and subjected to GeneXpert, LPA and Culture MGIT at the National TB Reference Laboratory. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were then determined to assess the performance characteristics of the various assays. RESULTS: Against culture MGIT as the gold standard for TB diagnosis, GeneXpert had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 78.5, 64.9, 59.4 and 82.2% respectively while LPA had 98.4, 66.0, 65.4 and 98.4%. For diagnosis of rifampicin mono-resistance GeneXpert had a moderate agreement (Kappa 0.59, P < 0.01) (sensitivity 62.50%, specificity 96.50%) while LPA that had almost perfect agreement (Kappa = 0.89, p < 0.01) with a (sensitivity 90.0% and specificity 99.1%). CONCLUSION: LPA has a better performance characteristic to GeneXpert and an alternative to culture with regards to detection of RIF's mono-resistance.
