Objectives To compare performance of the ResistancePlus kit (SpeeDx, Australia) with in-house methods for the detection of Mycoplasma genitalium-specific DNA and mutations associated with resistance to macrolide antimicrobials, directly from clinical specimens.
Methods Assay specificity and sensitivity was analysed using DNA from 46 non-M. genitalium organisms and standard curve analysis, respectively. A panel of archived DNA extracted from 97 M. genitalium-positive clinical specimens, for which the macrolide susceptibility genotype had been previously determined, were tested on the assay and results compared.
Results Final analytical specificity was 100%. Sensitivity was detected to at least 140 genome copies/µL. The assay detected M. genitalium in 92/97 (94.9%, 95% CI 88.4% to 98.3%) previously positive specimens. The genetic macrolide susceptibility assigned was concordant with previous results in 85/92 (92.4%, 95% CI 85.0% to 96.9%) specimens or 85/97 (87.6%, 95% CI: 79.4% to 93.4%) when the false-negative specimens were included. On seven (7/92, 7.6%) occasions, resistant specimens were called susceptible. Further testing resolved discrepancies for all but five (5.2%) specimens.
Conclusions The ResistancePlus assay generally performed well in comparison to methods currently employed at the reference laboratory. It detected a range of different mutations; however, a small number of specimens that were genotyped as macrolide resistant by Sanger sequencing were either not detected by the assay or were genotyped as susceptible. This could impact on treatment outcomes if assay results were used for patient management.
- antibiotic resistance
- molecular techniques
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Handling editor Nigel Field
Contributors RP carried out the laboratory work and prepared the first draft of the manuscript for this evaluation. MJC, HF and NW contributed to the analysis of results and subsequent drafts of the manuscript.
Funding This evaluation was funded and commissioned by SpeeDx. Funding was provided by SpeeDx for RP to attend and present this work at ECCMID 2017.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.