Infrequent MODS TB culture cross-contamination in a high-burden resource-poor setting.

One obstacle to wider use of rapid liquid culture-based tuberculosis diagnostics such as the microscopic observation drug susceptibility (MODS) assay is concern about cross-contamination. We investigated the rate of laboratory cross-contamination in MODS, automated MBBacT, and Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) cultures performed in parallel, through triangulation of microbiologic (reculturing stored samples), molecular (spoligotype/RFLP), and clinical epidemiologic data. At least 1 culture was positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis for 362 (11%) of 3416 samples; 53 were regarded as potential cross-contamination suspects. Cross-contamination accounted for 17 false-positive cultures from 14 samples representing 0.41% (14/3416) and 0.17% (17/10248) of samples and cultures, respectively. Positive predictive values for MODS, MBBacT (bioMérieux, Durham, NC), and LJ were 99.1%, 98.7%, and 99.7%, and specificity was 99.9% for all 3. Low rates of cross-contamination are achievable in mycobacterial laboratories in resource-poor settings even when a large proportion of samples are infectious and highly sensitive liquid culture-based diagnostics such as MODS are used.

[1]  E. Nardell,et al.  Estimated Costs of False Laboratory Diagnoses of Tuberculosis in Three Patients , 2002, Emerging infectious diseases.

[2]  B. Kreiswirth,et al.  Cross-Contamination with Mycobacterium tuberculosis: An Epidemiological and Laboratory Investigation , 1998, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[3]  G. Schoolnik,et al.  Molecular strain typing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to confirm cross-contamination in the mycobacteriology laboratory and modification of procedures to minimize occurrence of false-positive cultures , 1993, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[4]  M. Wilson,et al.  The effect of changes in laboratory practices on the rate of false-positive cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. , 2001, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[5]  W. D. Jones.  Bacteriophage typing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis cultures from incidents of suspected laboratory cross-contamination. , 1988, Tubercle.

[6]  D. van Soolingen,et al.  False-Positive Mycobacterium tuberculosis Cultures in 44 Laboratories in The Netherlands (1993 to 2000): Incidence, Risk Factors, and Consequences , 2002, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[7]  P. V. van Helden,et al.  Criteria for Identification of Cross-Contamination of Cultures of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Routine Microbiology Laboratories , 2003, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[8]  P. Butcher,et al.  Estimation of the Rate of Unrecognized Cross-Contamination with Mycobacterium tuberculosis in London Microbiology Laboratories , 2002, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[9]  R. Macgregor,et al.  The significance of isolating low numbers of mycobacterium tuberculosis in culture of sputum specimens. , 1975, Chest.

[10]  P. Hawkey,et al.  Rapid Identification of Laboratory Contamination withMycobacterium tuberculosis Using Variable Number Tandem Repeat Analysis , 2001, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[11]  A. Nitta,et al.  Misdiagnosis of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis possibly due to laboratory-related errors. , 1996, JAMA.

[12]  J. T. Crawford,et al.  Strain identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by DNA fingerprinting: recommendations for a standardized methodology , 1993, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[13]  J. Musser,et al.  Extensive Cross-Contamination of Specimens withMycobacterium tuberculosis in a Reference Laboratory , 1999, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[14]  D. van Soolingen,et al.  Investigation of cross contamination in a Mycobacterium tuberculosis laboratory using IS6110 DNA fingerprinting. , 1998, The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease.

[15]  D. Young,et al.  Differentiation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates by spoligotyping and IS6110 restriction fragment length polymorphism , 1997, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[16]  D. Berg,et al.  Rapid, Efficient Detection and Drug Susceptibility Testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Sputum by Microscopic Observation of Broth Cultures , 2000, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[17]  R. Reves,et al.  Review of false-positive cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis and recommendations for avoiding unnecessary treatment. , 2000, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[18]  R. Chaisson,et al.  Performance of the Microscopic Observation Drug Susceptibility Assay in Drug Susceptibility Testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis , 2002, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[19]  T. Gottlieb,et al.  Laboratory cross‐contamination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: an investigation and analysis of causes and consequences , 2002, Internal medicine journal.

[20]  C. Evans,et al.  Microscopic Observation Drug Susceptibility Assay, a Rapid, Reliable Diagnostic Test for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Suitable for Use in Resource-Poor Settings , 2004, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[21]  R. Reves,et al.  The incidence of false-positive cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. , 1997, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[22]  P. Bifani,et al.  Misdiagnoses of Tuberculosis Resulting from Laboratory Cross-Contamination of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Cultures—New Jersey, 1998 , 2000, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[23]  P. Bifani,et al.  Use of Spoligotype Analysis to Detect Laboratory Cross-Contamination , 2000, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[24]  A. Kritski,et al.  Mycobacterium tuberculosis typing: usefulness of DRE-PCR to confirm cross-contamination in the mycobacteriology laboratory of a general reference hospital for AIDS. , 2002, The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease.

[25]  Specimen contamination in mycobacteriology laboratory detected by pseudo-outbreak of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: analysis by routine epidemiology and confirmation by molecular technique , 1996, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[26]  J. Bauer,et al.  False-positive results from cultures of Mycobacterium tuberculosis due to laboratory cross-contamination confirmed by restriction fragment length polymorphism , 1997, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[27]  M. Jacobs,et al.  Diagnostic microbiology and therapeutic drug monitoring in pediatric infectious diseases. , 1983, Pediatric clinics of North America.

[28]  E. Engelke,et al.  Reduction of the Rate of False-Positive Cultures of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a Laboratory with a High Culture Positivity Rate , 2002, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[29]  C. Braden,et al.  A Prospective, Multicenter Study of Laboratory Cross-Contamination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Cultures , 2002, Emerging infectious diseases.

[30]  R. Gilman,et al.  Failure to complete the TB diagnostic algorithm in urban Perú: a study of contributing factors , 2005, Tropical doctor.

[31]  G. Zuccotti,et al.  Pseudo-Outbreak of Multidrug-Resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis Associated With Presumed Laboratory Processing Contamination , 2002, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[32]  D. W. Vance,et al.  Specimen cross-contamination by a strain of Mycobacterium tuberculosis lacking nitrate reductase activity. , 1991, Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease.

[33]  S. Segal-Maurer,et al.  Mycobacterium tuberculosis Specimen Contamination Revisited: The Role of Laboratory Environmental Control in a Pseudo-outbreak , 1998, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[34]  J. Maurer,et al.  False-positive cultures of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. , 1984, Chest.