medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-3054 (Electronic)

2016, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Cubana Med Trop 2016; 68 (2)

Cross-contamination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis at the National Rference Laboratory of Tuberculosis of Cuba

Martínez RMR, Sardiña AM, García LG, Mederos CLM, Freyre CG, Díaz RR

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 148-156
PDF size: 85.28 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: cross contamination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in the laboratory is more common than thought.
Objective: to confirm a possible event of cross-contamination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in the National Reference Laboratory of Tuberculosis, Leprosy and Mycobacteria of "Pedro Kouri" Institute.
Methods: a descriptive and retrospective study of quality indicators of culture for the third quarter of 2014 was conducted. An increased Mycobacterium tuberculosispositive culture with low encodings was observed during a working day. Ten isolates of 19 processed samples were found: eight suspected cross-contamination and two isolates from one of the patients involved and had a positive culture processed on a different date. The samples were processed as established by the National Program for Tuberculosis Control in Cuba. Positive cultures were typed by using oligonucleotide spacers Spoligotyping.
Results: the isolation of the sample 1 435 (patient 1) showed a unique pattern that does not appear in the international database SITVIT2. In the culturing of 1 438 and 1 439 samples (patient 2), the Beijing lineage (type 1) was identified. In the remaining seven cultures (patients 3 through 7), the lineage S type 71 was identified. The subsequent cultures of the samples taken from these patients were negative except for patient 5 (sample 1 561) in whom Mtb was isolated with the same genetic pattern.
Conclusions: the results of genotyping allowed confirming the contaminated positive cultures and inferring a possible source of contamination during that workday. It also highlights the importance of identifying cross-contamination events, because it may involve poor clinical management of patients and thus the unnecessary use of a long and costly treatment, in addition to influencing the analysis and interpretation of the results from the epidemiological viewpoint.


REFERENCES

  1. World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis report 2015. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015 [cited 23 Aug 2016]. Disponible en: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/191102/1/9789241565059_eng.pdf?ua=1

  2. Rageade F, Picot N, Blanc-Michaud A, Chatellier S, Mirande C, Fortin E, 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;33:867-70.

  3. Glynn JR, Yates MD, Crampin AC, Ngwira BM, Mwaungulu FD, Black GF, et al. DNA fingerprint changes in tuberculosis: reinfection, evolution, or laboratory error? J Infect Dis. 2004;190:1158-66.

  4. Alonso V, Paul R, Barrera L, Ritacco V. Falso diagnóstico de tuberculosis por cultivo. Medicina. 2007;67:287-94.

  5. Burman WJ, Reves RR. Review of false-positive cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis and recommendations for avoiding unnecessary treatment. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31:1390-5.

  6. Martín Herranz AM, Martínez Lirola M, Fernández Fernández R, Bouza E, García de Viedma D. Optimized molecular resolution of cross-contamination alerts in clinical mycobacteriology laboratories. BMC Microbiol. 2008 [cited 23 Aug 2016]; 8(30). Disponible en: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2180/8/30

  7. Marrero A, Carreras L, Valdivia JA, Montoro E, González E, Torres R, et al. Programa Nacional de Control de la Tuberculosis. Manual de Normas y Procedimientos. La Habana: Ed. Ciencias Médicas; 2010.

  8. Van Soolingen D, de Haas P, Kremer K. Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) typing of mycobacteria. Methods Mol Med. 2001;54:165-203. doi: 10.1385/1-59259-147-7:165.

  9. Kamerbeek J, Schouls L, Kolk A, van Agterveld M, van Soolingen D, Kuijper S, et al. Simultaneous detection and strain differentiation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis for diagnosis and epidemiology. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35(4):907-14.

  10. de Boer AS, Blommerde B, de Haas PE, Sebek MM. False-Positive Mycobacterium tuberculosis cultures in 44 Laboratories in The Netherlands (1993 to 2000): Incidence, Risk Factors, and Consequences. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40(11):4004-9.

  11. Martínez M, García de Viedma D, Alonso M, Andrés S, Bouza E, Cabezas T, Cabeza I, et al. Impact of laboratory cross-contamination on molecular epidemiology studies of tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:2967-9.

  12. Diaz R, Crespo FM, Herrera S, Sevy-Court J, Marrero A, van Soolingen D. Laboratory Cross-Contamination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis during preparations of Smears. J Third World Med. 2005 [cited 2016 Aug 23];2(2). Disponible en: http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijtwm/front.xml

  13. Jasmer RM, Roemer M, Hamilton J, Bunter J, Braden CR, Shinnick T, et al. A Prospective, Multicenter Study of Laboratory Cross Contamination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis cultures. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8(11):1260-3.

  14. Al-Otaibi A, El-Hazmi M. Investigation of Cross Contamination in Mycobacterium tuberculosis Laboratory using Epidemiological data and Spoligotyping. Pak J Med Sci. 2008;24(6):827-32.

  15. Small PM, McClenny NB, Singh SP, Schoolnik GK, Tompkins LS, Mickelsen PA. Molecular strain typing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to confirm crosscontamination in the mycobacteriology laboratory and modification of procedures to minimize occurrence of false positive cultures. J Clin Microbiol. 1993;31:1677-82.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com