Feasibility of establishing a biosafety level 3 tuberculosis culture laboratory of acceptable quality standards in a resource-limited setting: an experience from Uganda

Abstract

BackgroundDespite the recent innovations in tuberculosis (TB) and multi-drug resistant TB (MDR-TB) diagnosis, culture remains vital for difficult-to-diagnose patients, baseline and end-point determination for novel vaccines and drug trials. Herein, we share our experience of establishing a BSL-3 culture facility in Uganda as well as 3-years performance indicators and post-TB vaccine trials (pioneer) and funding experience of sustaining such a facility.MethodsBetween September 2008 and April 2009, the laboratory was set-up with financial support from external partners. After an initial procedure validation phase in parallel with the National TB Reference Laboratory (NTRL) and legal approvals, the laboratory registered for external quality assessment (EQA) from the NTRL, WHO, National Health Laboratories Services (NHLS), and the College of American Pathologists (CAP). The laboratory also instituted a functional quality management system (QMS). Pioneer funding ended in 2012 and the laboratory remained in self-sustainability mode.ResultsThe laboratory achieved internationally acceptable standards in both structural and biosafety requirements. Of the 14 patient samples analyzed in the procedural validation phase, agreement for all tests with NTRL was 90% (P <0.01). It started full operations in October 2009 performing smear microscopy, culture, identification, and drug susceptibility testing (DST). The annual culture workload was 7,636, 10,242, and 2,712 inoculations for the years 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively. Other performance indicators of TB culture laboratories were also monitored. Scores from EQA panels included smear microscopy >80% in all years from NTRL, CAP, and NHLS, and culture was 100% for CAP panels and above regional average scores for all years with NHLS. Quarterly DST scores from WHO-EQA ranged from 78% to 100% in 2010, 80% to 100% in 2011, and 90 to 100% in 2012.ConclusionsFrom our experience, it is feasible to set-up a BSL-3 TB culture laboratory with acceptable quality performance standards in resource-limited countries. With the demonstrated quality of work, the laboratory attracted more research groups and post-pioneer funding, which helped to ensure sustainability. The high skilled experts in this research laboratory also continue to provide an excellent resource for the needed national discussion of the laboratory and quality management systems.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1478-4505-13-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Public funding for research on antibacterial resistance in the JPIAMR countries, the European Commission, and related European Union agencies: a systematic observational analysis

“…However, to deal with these financial confounders, we analysed the number of projects and compared trends across countries using number of projects rather than focusing solely on investment. If this exercise were to be extended globally and include countries such as China and India with fluctuating currency and inflation rates over time, the method described by Young and colleagues 35 could be followed to ensure careful comparison between countries with variable exchange and inflation rates. The subjective classification of these cross-disciplinary projects, by the data analyst, to one or more of the priority topics leaves the exercise somewhat open to question.…”

Biocontainment in Low Income Countries: A Short Discussion

“…Any wrong (or non-right) decision could have significant cost repercussions. Indeed small laboratories have high costs; the total construction cost of around 30 m 2 lab and equipment investment, at 2009, accounted 400.000 US dollars [15]. Start-up consumables and reagents for one year cost additional US$ 134,655.…”

“…And allow, with some arrangements, future increases of BSL3 areas by deploying multiple containers alongside one another or be interconnecting modules [18]. This is not, however, a general opinion, as others have considered building structure instead of buying a modular laboratory because modular design may not be easy to sustain and durable given the challenges in terms of environment, electricity instability, and lack of technical expertise in case of system breakdown [15]. Nevertheless, it should be warned that architectural and engineering consultants, who typically receive a percentage of any specific facility's construction cost, have a strong incentive to over design, which can increase both upfront and maintenance costs [11] in the building process.…”

Certification & validation of biosafety level-2 & biosafety level-3 laboratories in Indian settings & common issues

“…In general terms, the validation process is known as ‘the process of proving that a procedure, process, system, equipment or method used in the laboratory works as expected and achieves the intended result’ 10 . In the context of a biosafety laboratory, the reagents, tests and equipment, the validation is a process that determines the fitness of these, which has been properly developed, optimized and standardized, for an intended purpose.…”