Performance of bioMérieux Lowenstein–Jensen slopes in plastic tube packaging, compared to existing phenotypic methods, for efficient recovery of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex Free

Abstract

Purpose. Lowenstein–Jensen (LJ) medium used for cultivating Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is marketed in glass packaging. Breakage of glass slope is a major biosafety risk, especially during processing and storage, which gets magnified in large laboratories. We evaluated the performance of new bioMérieux (bMx) LJ slopes in plastic packaging, compared to bMx glass LJ medium and Becton Dickinson Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT), for MTB recovery.

Methodology. Consecutive pulmonary/extra-pulmonary samples (n=240) were processed using routine methods of decontamination, inoculation and incubation.

Results. Plastic LJ slopes detected all 213 true-positive cases. The mean time-to-growth detection was 17.97 days for plastic LJ slopes, compared to 18.08 and 13.53 days for glass LJ slopes and MGIT, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two LJ slopes (P< 0.05). Both LJ slopes had a sensitivity and specificity of 100%, with respect to MGIT.

Conclusion. Plastic LJ slopes are a good alternative to the traditional glass slopes. The medium quality did not differ with the packaging material. Increased surface area of these slants allowed enhanced growth, and the clear plastic material allowed accurate recording of growth. The wide mouth of these containers eased inoculation. Increased biosafety, by elimination of breakage risk, is the biggest advantage of this modification.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000930
2019-02-06
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/68/3/398.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000930&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Kent PT, Kubica GP. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Center for Disease Control. Public Health Mycobacteriology: a Guide for Level III Lab Atlanta, GA: CDC; 1985
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Microbiology Concepts 2016; Methods of sterilisation and disinfection. http://microbiologyconcepts.blogspot.in/2016/04/methods-of-sterilisation-and.html December 04, 2017
  3. Nambiar R, Chatellier S, Bereksi N, van Belkum A, Singh N et al. Evaluation of Mycotube, a modified version of Lowenstein–Jensen (LJ) Medium, for efficient recovery of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb). Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2017; 36:1981–1988 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Whitelaw AC, Sturm WA et al. Microbiological testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. In: Schaaf S, Zumla AI, Grange JM, Raviglione MC, Yew WW. (editors) Tuberculosis: a comprehensive clinical reference Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2009
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Essa SA, Abdel-Samea SAR, Ismaeil YM, Mohammad AA. Comparative study between using Lowenstein–Jensen and Bio-FM media in identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Egypt J Chest Dis Tuberc 2013; 62:249–255 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Core curriculum on tuberculosis: what the clinician should know Atlanta, GA: CDC; 2013
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Tortoli E, Cichero P, Piersimoni C, Simonetti MT, Gesu G et al. Use of BACTEC MGIT 960 for recovery of mycobacteria from clinical specimens: multicenter study. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37:3578–3582
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Arora J, Kumar G, Verma AK, Bhalla M, Sarin R et al. Utility of MPT64 antigen detection for rapid confirmation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. J Glob Infect Dis 2015; 7:66–69 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. American Thoracic Society Diagnostic standards and classification of tuberculosis in adults and children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 161:1376–1395 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Rodrigues C, Shenai S, Sadani M, Sukhadia N, Jani M et al. Evaluation of the Bactec MGIT 960 TB system for recovery and identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in a high through put tertiary care centre. Indian J Med Microbiol 2009; 27:217–221 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chihota VN, Grant AD, Fielding K, Ndibongo B, van Zyl A et al. Liquid vs. solid culture for tuberculosis: performance and cost in a resource-constrained setting. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2010; 14:1024–1031
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Rageade F, Picot N, Blanc-Michaud A, Chatellier S, Mirande C et al. Performance of solid and liquid culture media for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in clinical materials: meta-analysis of recent studies. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2014; 33:867–870 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000930
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000930
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed