Table 5. Comparison between conventional DST, LPA and GeneXpert methods in accordance with the category of the patients (n = 300).
Category | LPA | DST | GeneXpert | ||||||||||||
RIF | INH | MDR | Ng | RIF | INH | MDR | NTM | ND | Cont. | RIF | Ng | Ind. | |||
Cat-I (n = 134) | Fail (n = 66) | R | 44 | 46 | 43 | 0 | 44 | 45 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 44 | 0 | 1 |
S | 22 | 20 | 21 | 20 | 21 | ||||||||||
RL (n = 16) | R | 8 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 0 | |
S | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 5 | ||||||||||
UT (n = 35) | R | 8 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 3 | 1 | |
S | 23 | 23 | 24 | 23 | 23 | ||||||||||
RD (n = 5) | R | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |
S | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
DC (n = 12) | R | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | |
S | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | ||||||||||
Cat-II (n = 149) | Fail (n = 92) | R | 76 | 77 | 76 | 0 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 76 | 0 | 0 |
S | 16 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 16 | ||||||||||
RL (n = 23) | R | 18 | 18 | 18 | 1 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 1 | 1 | |
S | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | ||||||||||
UT (n = 26) | R | 18 | 18 | 18 | 3 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 18 | 3 | 0 | |
S | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||
RD (n = 2) | R | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
S | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||
DC (n = 6) | R | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | |
S | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
Cat-IV (n = 5) | R | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | |
S | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||
New (n = 12) | R | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 0 | |
S | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
LPA = Line Probe Assay; DST = Drug Sensitivity Test; RIF = Rifampicin; INH = Isoniazid; R = Resistant; S = Sensitive; Ng. = Negative; NTM = Non-Tubercle Mycobacterium; ND = Not done; Cont. = Contamination; Ind. = indeterminate; Cat-I = Category-I; Cat-II = Category-II; Cat-IV = Category-IV; New = New case; n = number; Fail. = Failure; RL = Relapse; UT = Under treatment; RD = Return after Default; DC = Delayed Converter.