Back

Evaluation of Direct susceptibility testing method for Moxifloxacin against Mycobacterium tuberculosis using the BACTEC MGIT 960 system

BHADRA, S.; Gaikwad, U.; Vikram, K.; Chandrakar, S.; Prasad, A.

2026-03-09 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.03.07.26346296 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundMoxifloxacin is a key component of current MDR-TB therapy regimens. The choice to include it in therapy at standard or higher doses is based on the lack or presence of resistance mutations conferring low-level or high-level resistance to moxifloxacin, as detected by the Line probe assay (LPA). Due to inherent phenotypic and genotypic discordance, such resistance must be reconfirmed phenotypically using liquid culture and drug susceptibility testing (LC-DST) at critical concentration and clinical breakpoint of the drug. This takes several weeks, delaying the therapeutic decision. The current study intends to shorten this time by performing phenotypic DST directly on sputum samples. MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted for 18 months from October 2023 to April 2025, in which smear positive sputum samples that were resistant to Rifampicin or Isoniazid or both were subjected to Direct Moxifloxacin DST, irrespective of patient characteristics. Results obtained by Direct DST were compared against Indirect LC-DST as the gold standard as well as with LPA to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and time savings with direct DST. ResultsDirect DST exhibited high accuracy of 98.18%, high sensitivity (90.91%), high specificity (98.99%), excellent concordance (98.18%) and almost perfect agreement (kappa value - 0.901) when compared to Indirect DST. It saved an average of 10 {+/-} 3.20 days over Indirect DST to obtain the valid results. Similar performance was also observed in comparison to LPA with good sensitivity (90.91%), specificity (98.99%) and accuracy (98.18%). Significant discordance was however noted in classification of resistance by both direct and indirect DST compared to LPA. Few error rates and minimal cost advantages were some of the disadvantages of Direct-DST. ConclusionDirect DST demonstrated excellent performance characteristics, making it a reliable and rapid alternative to the gold standard, saving significant time in guiding therapeutic decisions for effective patient management.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.1%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 20%
9.9%
3
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.3%
4
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.2%
5
JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
6
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
7
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
8
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
9
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.0%
10
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
167 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.6%
11
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.6%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.6%
13
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
14
Journal of Medical Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
16
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
17
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
18
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
19
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
20
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
21
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
22
Tuberculosis
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
23
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
24
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
25
BMC Microbiology
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
26
Journal of Fungi
31 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
27
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
28
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
29
Journal of Infection and Public Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
30
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%