Pulmonology

Nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease is a broad term for a group of pulmonary disorders caused and characterized by exposure to environmental mycobacteria other than those belonging to the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and Mycobacterium leprae. Mycobacteria are aerobic, nonmotile organisms that appear positive with acid-fast alcohol stains. Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are ubiquitous in the environment and have been recovered from domestic and natural water sources, soil, and food products, and from around livestock, cattle, and wildlife.^1-3 To date, no evidence exists of human-to-human or animal-to-human transmission of NTM in the general population. Infections in humans are usually acquired from environmental exposures, although the specific source of infection cannot always be identified. Similarly, the mode of infection with NTM has not been established with certainty, but it is highly likely that the organism is implanted, ingested, aspirated, or inhaled. Aerosolization of droplets associated with use of bathroom showerheads and municipal water sources and soil contamination are some of the factors associated with the transmission of infection. Proven routes of transmission include showerheads and potting soil dust.^2,3

NTM pulmonary disease occurs in individuals with or without comorbid conditions such as bronchiectasis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, or structural lung diseases. Slender, middle-aged or elderly white females with marfanoid body habitus, with or without apparent immune or genetic disorders, showing impaired airway and mucus clearance present with this infection as a form of underlying bronchiectasis (Lady Windermere syndrome). It is unclear why NTM infections and escalation to clinical disease occur in certain individuals. Many risk factors, including inherited and acquired defects of host immune response (eg, cystic fibrosis trait and α1 antitrypsin deficiency), have been associated with increased susceptibility to NTM infections.⁴

NTM infection can lead to chronic symptoms, frequent exacerbations, progressive functional and structural lung destruction, and impaired quality of life, and is associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and higher 5-year all-cause mortality. As such, NTM disease is drawing increasing attention at the clinical, academic, and research levels.⁵ This case-based review outlines the clinical features of NTM infection, with a focus on the challenges in diagnosis, treatment, and management of NTM pulmonary disease. The cases use Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), a slow-growing mycobacteria (SGM), and Mycobacterium abscessus, a rapidly growing mycobacteria (RGM), as prototypes in a non–cystic fibrosis, non-HIV clinical setting.

Epidemiology

Of the almost 200 isolated species of NTM, the most prevalent pathogens for respiratory disease in the United States are MAC, Mycobacterium kansasii, and M. abscessus. MAC accounts for more than 80% of cases of NTM respiratory disease in the United States.⁶ The prevalence of NTM disease is increasing at a rate of about 8% each year, with 75,000 to 105,000 patients diagnosed with NTM lung disease in the United States annually. NTM infections in the United States are increasing among patients aged 65 years and older, a population that is expected to nearly double by 2030.^7,8

Isolation and prevalence of many NTM species are higher in certain geographic areas of the United States, especially in the southeast. The US coastal regions have a higher prevalence of NTM pulmonary disease, and account for 70% of NTM cases in the United States each year. Half of patients diagnosed with NTM lung disease reside in 7 states: Florida, New York, Texas, California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Ohio, with 1 in 7 residing in Florida. Three parishes in Louisiana are among the top 10 counties with the highest prevalence in United States. The prevalence of NTM infection–associated hospitalizations is increasing worldwide as well. Co-infection with tuberculosis and multiple NTMs in individual patients has been observed clinically and documented in patients with and without HIV.^9,10

It is not clear why the prevalence of NTM pulmonary disease is increasing, but there may be several contributing factors: (1) an increased awareness and identification of NTM infection sources in the environment; (2) an expanding cohort of immunocompromised individuals with exogenous or endogenous immune deficiencies; (3) availability of improved diagnostic techniques, such as use of high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), DNA probes, and gene sequencing; and (4) an increased awareness of the morbidity and mortality associated with NTM pulmonary disease. However, it is important to recognize that to best understand the clinical relevance of epidemiologic studies based on laboratory diagnosis and identification, the findings must be evaluated by correlating them with the microbiological and other clinical criteria established by the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines.¹¹

Continue to: Mycobacterium avium Complex

Mycobacterium avium Complex

Case Patient 1

A 48-year-old woman who has never smoked and has no past medical problems, except seasonal allergic rhinitis and “colds and flu-like illness” once or twice a year, is evaluated for a chronic lingering cough with occasional sputum production. The patient denies any other chronic symptoms and is otherwise active. Physical examination reveals no specific findings except mild pectus excavatum and mild scoliosis. Body mass index is 22 kg/m². Chest radiograph shows nonspecific increased markings in the lower zones. Computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest reveals minimal nodular and cylindrical bronchiectasis in both lungs (Figure 1). No previous radiographs are available for comparison. The patient is HIV-negative. Sputum tests reveal normal flora, and both fungus and acid-fast bacilli smear are negative. Culture for mycobacteria shows scanty growth of MAC in 1 specimen.

What is the clinical presentation of MAC pulmonary disease?

Among NTM, MAC is the most common cause of pulmonary disease worldwide.⁶ MAC primarily includes 2 species: M. avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare. M. avium is the more important pathogen in disseminated disease, whereas M. intracellulare is the more common respiratory pathogen.¹¹ These organisms are genetically similar and generally not differentiated in the clinical microbiology laboratory, although there are isolated reports in the literature suggesting differences in prevalence, presentation, and prognosis in M. avium infection versus M. intracellulare infection.¹²

Three major disease syndromes are produced by MAC in humans: pulmonary disease, usually in adults whose systemic immunity is intact; disseminated disease, usually in patients with advanced HIV infection; and cervical lymphadenitis.¹³ Pulmonary disease caused by MAC may take on 1 of several clinically different forms, including asymptomatic “colonization” or persistent minimal infection without obvious clinical significance; endobronchial involvement; progressive pulmonary disease with radiographic and clinical deterioration and nodular bronchiectasis or cavitary lung disease; hypersensitivity pneumonitis; or persistent, overwhelming mycobacterial growth with symptomatic manifestations, often in a lung with underlying damage due to either chronic obstructive lung disease or pulmonary fibrosis (Table 1).¹⁴

Cavitary Disease

The traditionally recognized presentation of MAC lung disease has been apical cavitary lung disease in men in their late 40s and early 50s who have a history of cigarette smoking, and frequently, excessive alcohol use. If left untreated, or in the case of erratic treatment or macrolide drug resistance, this form of disease is generally progressive within a relatively short time and can result in extensive cavitary lung destruction and progressive respiratory failure.¹⁵

Nodular Bronchiectasis

The more common presentation of MAC lung disease, which is outlined in the case described here, is interstitial nodular infiltrates, frequently involving the right middle lobe or lingula and predominantly occurring in postmenopausal, nonsmoking white women. This is sometimes labelled “Lady Windermere syndrome.” These patients with M. avium infection appear to have similar clinical characteristics and body types, including lean build, scoliosis, pectus excavatum, and mitral valve prolapse.^16,17 The mechanism by which this body morphotype predisposes to pulmonary mycobacterial infection is not defined, but ineffective mucociliary clearance is a possible explanation. Evidence suggests that some patients may be predisposed to NTM lung disease because of preexisting bronchiectasis. Some potential etiologies of bronchiectasis in this population include chronic sinusitis, gastroesophageal reflux with chronic aspiration, α1 antitrypsin deficiency, and cystic fibrosis genetic traits and mutations.¹⁸ Risk factors for increased morbidity and mortality include the development of cavitary disease, age, weight loss, lower body mass index, and other comorbid conditions.

This form of disease, termed nodular bronchiectasis, tends to have a much slower progression than cavitary disease, such that long-term follow-up (months to years) may be necessary to demonstrate clinical or radiographic changes.¹¹ The radiographic term “tree-in-bud” has been used to describe what may reflect inflammatory changes, including bronchiolitis. High-resolution CT scans of the chest are especially helpful for diagnosing this pattern of MAC lung disease, as bronchiectasis and small nodules may not be easily discernible on plain chest radiograph. The nodular/bronchiectasis radiographic pattern can also be seen with other NTM pathogens, including M. abscessus, Mycobacterium simiae, and M. kansasii. Solitary nodules and dense consolidation have also been described. Pleural effusions are uncommon, but reactive pleural thickening is frequently seen. Co-pathogens may be isolated from culture, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and, occasionally, other NTM such as M. abscessus or Mycobacterium chelonae.^19-21

Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis, initially described in patients who were exposed to hot tubs, mimics allergic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, with respiratory symptoms and culture/tissue identification of MAC or sometimes other NTM. It is unclear whether hypersensitivity pneumonitis is an inflammatory process, an infection, or both, and opinion regarding the need for specific antibiotic treatment is divided.^11,22 However, avoidance of exposure is prudent and recommended.

Disseminated Disease

Disseminated NTM disease is associated with very low CD4+ lymphocyte counts and is seen in approximately 5% of patients with HIV infection.^23-25 Although disseminated NTM disease is rarely seen in immunosuppressed patients without HIV infection, it has been reported in patients who have undergone renal or cardiac transplant, patients on long-term corticosteroid therapy, and those with leukemia or lymphoma. More than 90% of infections are caused by MAC; other potential pathogens include M. kansasii, M. chelonae, M. abscessus, and Mycobacterium haemophilum. Although seen less frequently since the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy, disseminated infection can develop progressively from an apparently indolent or localized infection or a respiratory or gastrointestinal source. Signs and symptoms of disseminated infection (specifically MAC-associated disease) are nonspecific and include fever, night sweats, weight loss, and abdominal tenderness. Disseminated MAC disease occurs primarily in patients with more advanced HIV disease (CD4+ count typically < 50 cells/μL). Clinically, disseminated MAC manifests as intermittent or persistent fever, constitutional symptoms with organomegaly and organ-specific abnormalities (eg, anemia, neutropenia from bone marrow involvement, adenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly), and elevations of liver enzymes or lung infiltrates from pulmonary involvement.

Continue to: What are the criteria for diagnosing NTM pulmonary disease?

What are the criteria for diagnosing NTM pulmonary disease?

The diagnosis of NTM disease is based on clinical, radiologic, and mycobacterial correlation with good communication between the experts in this field. The ATS/IDSA criteria for diagnosing NTM lung disease are shown in Figure 2. These criteria best apply to MAC, M. kansasii, and M. abscessus, but are also clinically applied to other NTM respiratory pathogens. The diagnosis of MAC infection is most readily established by culture of blood, bone marrow, respiratory secretions/fluid, or tissue specimens from suspected sites of involvement. Due to erratic shedding of MAC into the respiratory secretions in patients with nodular bronchiectasis, as compared to those with the cavitary form of the disease, sputum may be intermittently positive, with variable colony counts and polyclonal infections.¹² Prior to the advent of high-resolution CT, isolation of MAC organisms from the sputum of such patients was frequently dismissed as colonization.

Mycobacterial Testing

Because of the nonspecific symptoms and lack of diagnostic specificity of chest imaging, the diagnosis of NTM lung disease requires microbiologic confirmation. Specimens sent to the laboratory for identification of NTM must be handled with care to prevent contamination and false-positive results. Transport media and preservatives should be avoided, and transportation of the specimens should be prompt. These measures will prevent bacterial overgrowth. Furthermore, the yield of NTM may be affected if the patient has used antibiotics, such as macrolides and fluoroquinolones, prior to obtaining the specimen.

NTM should be identified at the species and subspecies level, although this is not practical in community practice settings. The preferred staining procedure in the laboratory is the fluorochrome method. Some species require special growth conditions and/or lower incubation temperatures, and other identification methods may have to be employed, such as DNA probes, polymerase chain reaction genotyping, nucleic acid sequence determination, and high-performance liquid chromatography. As a gold standard, clinical specimens for mycobacterial cultures should be inoculated onto 1 or more solid media (eg, Middlebrook 7H11 media and/or Lowenstein-Jensen media, the former of which is the preferred medium for NTM) and into a liquid medium (eg, BACTEC 12B broth or Mycobacteria growth indicator tube broth). Growth of visible colonies on solid media typically requires 2 to 4 weeks, but liquid media (eg, the radiometric BACTEC system), used as a supplementary and not as an exclusive test, usually produce results within 10 to 14 days. Furthermore, even after initial growth, identification of specific isolates based on the growth characteristics on solid media requires additional time. Use of specific nucleic acid probes for MAC and M. kansasii and HPLC testing of mycolic acid patterns in acid-fast bacilli smear–positive specimens can reduce the turnaround time of specific identification of a primary culture–positive sample. However, HPLC is not sufficient for definitive identification of many NTM species, including the RGM. Other newer techniques, including 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing and polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis, also allow NTM to be identified and speciated more reliably and rapidly from clinical specimens.

Cost and other practical considerations limit widespread adoption of these techniques. However, the recognition that M. abscessus can be separated into more than 1 subspecies, and that there are important prognostic implications of that separation, lends urgency to the broader adoption of newer molecular techniques in the mycobacteriology laboratory. Susceptibility testing is based on the broth microdilution method; RGM usually grow within 7 days of subculture, and the laboratory time to culture is a helpful hint, although not necessarily specific. Recognizing the morphology of mycobacterial colony growth may also be helpful in identification.

Are skin tests helpful in diagnosing NTM infection?

Tuberculin skin testing remains a nonspecific marker of mycobacterial infection and does not help in further elucidating NTM infection. However, epidemiologic and laboratory studies with well-characterized antigens have shown that dual skin testing with tuberculosis- versus NTM-derived tuberculin can discriminate between prior NTM and prior tuberculosis disease. Species-specific skin test antigens are not commercially available and are not helpful in the diagnosis of NTM disease because of cross-reactivity of M. tuberculosis and some NTM. However, increased prevalence of NTM sensitization based on purified protein derivative testing has been noted in a recent survey, which is consistent with an observed increase in the rates of NTM infections, specifically MAC, in the United States.^26,27

Interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) are now being used as an alternative to tuberculin skin testing to diagnose M. tuberculosis infection. Certain NTM species also contain gene sequences that encode for ESAT-6 or CFP-10 antigens used in the IGRAs, and hence, yield a positive IGRA test. These include M. marinum, M. szulgai, and M. kansasii.^28,29 However, MAC organisms do not produce positive results on assays that use these antigens.

Continue to: What is the approach to management of NTM pulmonary disease?

What is the approach to management of NTM pulmonary disease?

The correlation of symptoms with radiographic and microbiologic evidence is essential to categorize the disease and determine the need for therapy. Making the diagnosis of NTM lung disease does not necessitate the institution of therapy. The decision to treat should be weighed against potential risks and benefits to the individual patient based on symptomatic, radiographic, and microbiologic criteria, as well as underlying systemic or pulmonary immune status. In the absence of evidence of clinical, radiologic, or mycobacterial progression of disease, pursuing airway clearance therapy and clinical surveillance without initiating specific anti-MAC therapy is a reasonable option.¹¹ Identifying the sustained presence of NTM infection, especially MAC, in a patient with underlying clinical and radiographic evidence of bronchiectasis is of value in determining comprehensive treatment and management strategies. Close observation is indicated if the decision not to treat is made. If treatment is initiated, comprehensive management includes long-term follow-up with periodic bacteriologic surveillance, watching for drug toxicity and drug-drug interactions, ensuring adherence and compliance to treatment, and managing comorbidity.

The Bronchiectasis Severity Index is a useful clinical predictive tool that identifies patients at risk of future mortality, hospitalization, and exacerbations and can be used to evaluate the need for specific treatment.30 The index is based on dyspnea score, lung function tests, colonization of pathogens, and extent of disease.

Case 1 Continued

After approximately 2 months of observation and symptomatic treatment, without specific antibiotic therapy, the patient’s symptoms continue. She now develops intermittent hemoptysis. Repeat sputum studies reveal moderate growth of M. avium. A follow-up CT scan shows progression of disease, with an increase in the tree-in-bud pattern (Figure 3).

What treatment protocols are recommended for MAC pulmonary disease?

As per the ATS/IDSA statement, macrolides are the mainstay of treatment for pulmonary MAC disease.¹¹ Macrolides achieve an increased concentration in the lung, and when used for treatment of pulmonary MAC disease, there is a strong correlation between in vitro susceptibility, in vivo (clinical) response, and the immunomodulating effects of macrolides.^31,32 Macrolide-containing regimens have demonstrated efficacy in patients with MAC pulmonary disease^33,34; however, macrolide monotherapy should be avoided to prevent the development of resistance.

At the outset, it is critical to establish the objective criteria for determining response and to ensure that the patient understands the goals of the treatment and expectations of the treatment plan. Moreover, experts suggest that due to the possibility of drug intolerance, side effects, and the need for prolonged therapy, a “step ladder” ramping up approach to treatment could be adopted, with gradual introduction of therapy within a short time period; this approach may improve compliance and adherence to treatment.¹¹ If this approach is used, the doses may have to be divided. Patients who are unable to tolerate daily medications, even with dosage adjustment, should be tried on an intermittent treatment regimen. Older female patients frequently require gradual introduction of medications (ie, 1 medication added to the regimen every 1 to 2 weeks) to evaluate tolerance to each medication and medication dose.¹¹ Commonly encountered adverse effects of NTM treatment include intolerance to clarithromycin due to gastrointestinal problems, low body mass index, or age older than 70 years.

After determining that the patient requires therapy, the standard recommended treatment for MAC pulmonary disease includes the following: for most patients with nodular/bronchiectasis disease, a thrice-weekly regimen of clarithromycin (1000 mg) or azithromycin (500 mg), rifampin (600 mg), and ethambutol (25 mg/kg) is recommended. For patients with cavitary MAC pulmonary disease or severe nodular/bronchiectasis disease, the guidelines recommend a daily regimen of clarithromycin (500-1000 mg) or azithromycin (250 mg), rifampin (600 mg) or rifabutin (150–300 mg), and ethambutol (15 mg/kg), with consideration of intravenous (IV) amikacin 3 times/week early in therapy (Table 2).¹¹

The treatment of MAC hypersensitivity-like disease speaks to the controversy of whether this is an inflammatory process, infectious process, or a combination of inflammation and infection. Avoidance of exposure is the mainstay of management. In some cases, steroids are used with or without a short course of anti-MAC therapy (ie, clarithromycin or azithromycin with rifampin and ethambutol).

Prophylaxis for disseminated MAC disease should be given to adults with HIV infection who have a CD4+ count less than 50 cells/μL. Azithromycin 1200 mg/week or clarithromycin 1000 mg/day has proven efficacy, and rifabutin 300 mg/day is also effective but less well tolerated. Rifabutin is more active in vitro against MAC than rifampin, and is used in HIV-positive patients because of drug-drug interaction between antiretroviral drugs and rifampin.

Continue to: Case 1 Continued

Case 1 Continued

The patient is treated with clarithromycin, rifampin, and ethambutol for 1 year, with sputum conversion after 9 months. In the latter part of her treatment, she experiences decreased visual acuity. Treatment is discontinued prematurely after 1 year due to drug toxicity and continued intolerance to drug therapy. The patient remains asymptomatic for 8 months, and then begins to experience mild to moderate hemoptysis, with increasing cough and sputum production associated with postural changes during exercise. Physical examination overall remains unchanged. Three sputum results reveal heavy growth of MAC, and a CT scan of the chest shows a cavitary lesion in the left upper lobe along with the nodular bronchiectasis (Figure 4).

What are the management options at this stage?

Based on this patient’s continued symptoms, progression of radiologic abnormalities, and current culture growth, she requires re-treatment. With the adverse effects associated with ethambutol during the first round of therapy, the drug regimen needs to be modified. Several considerations are relevant at this stage. Relapse rates range from 20% to 30% after treatment with a macrolide-based therapy.^11,34 Obtaining a culture-sensitivity profile is imperative in these cases. Of note, treatment should not be discontinued altogether, but instead the toxic agent should be removed from the treatment regimen. Continuing treatment with a 2-drug regimen of clarithromycin and rifampin may be considered in this patient. Re-infection with multiple genotypes may also occur after successful drug therapy, but this is primarily seen in MAC patients with nodular bronchiectasis.^34,35 Patients in whom previous therapy has failed, even those with macrolide-susceptible MAC isolates, are less likely to respond to subsequent therapy. Data suggest that intermittent medication dosing is not effective for patients with severe or cavitary disease or in those in whom previous therapy has failed.³⁶ In this case, treatment should include a daily 3-drug therapy, with an injectable thrice-weekly aminoglycoside. Other agents such as linezolid and clofazimine may have to be tried. Cycloserine, ethionamide, and other agents are sometimes used, but their efficacy is unproven and doubtful. Pyrazinamide and isoniazid have no activity against MAC.

Treatment Failure and Drug Resistance

Treatment failure is considered to have occurred if patients have not had a response (microbiologic, clinical, or radiographic) after 6 months of appropriate therapy or had not achieved conversion of sputum to culture-negative after 12 months of appropriate therapy.¹¹ This occurs in about 40% of patients. Multiple factors can interfere with the successful treatment of MAC pulmonary disease, including medication nonadherence, medication side effects or intolerance, lack of response to a medication regimen, or the emergence of a macrolide-resistant or multidrug-resistant strain. Inducible macrolide resistance remains a potential factor.^34-36 A number of characteristics of NTM contribute to the poor response to currently used antibiotics: the organisms have a lipid outer membrane and prefer to adhere to surfaces and form biofilms, which makes them relatively impermeable to antibiotics.³⁷ Also, NTM replicate in phagocytic cells, allowing them to subvert normal cellular defense mechanisms. Furthermore, NTM can display colony variants, whereby single colony isolates switch between antibiotic-susceptible and -resistant variants. These factors have also impeded in development of new antibiotics for NTM infection.³⁷

Recent limited approval of amikacin liposomal inhalation suspension (ALIS) for treatment failure and refractory MAC infection in combination with guideline-based antimicrobial therapy (GBT) is a promising addition to the available treatment armamentarium. In a multinational trial, the addition of ALIS to GBT for treatment-refractory MAC lung disease achieved significantly greater culture conversion rates by month 6 than GBT alone, with comparable rates of serious adverse events.³⁸

Is therapeutic drug monitoring recommended during treatment of MAC pulmonary disease?

Treatment failure may also be drug-related, including poor drug penetration into the damaged lung tissue or drug-drug interactions leading to suboptimal drug levels. Peak serum concentrations have been found to be below target ranges in approximately 50% of patients using a macrolide and ethambutol. Concurrent use of rifampin decreases the peak serum concentration of macrolides and quinolones, with acceptable target levels seen in only 18% to 57% of cases. Whether this alters patient outcomes is not clear.^39-42 Factors identified as contributing to the poor response to therapy include poor compliance, cavitary disease, previous treatment for MAC pulmonary disease, and a history of chronic obstructive lung disease. Studies by Koh and colleagues⁴⁰ and van Ingen and colleagues⁴¹ with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics data showed that, in patients on MAC treatment with both clarithromycin and rifampicin, plasma levels of clarithromycin were lower than the recommended minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) against MAC for that drug. The studies also showed that rifampicin lowered clarithromycin concentrations more than did rifabutin, with the AUC/MIC ratio being suboptimal in nearly half the cases. However, low plasma clarithromycin concentrations did not have any correlation with treatment outcomes, as the peak plasma drug concentrations and the peak plasma drug concentration/MIC ratios did not differ between patients with unfavorable treatment outcomes and those with favorable outcomes. This is further compounded by the fact that macrolides achieve higher levels in lung tissue than in plasma, and hence the significance of low plasma levels is unclear; however, it is postulated that achieving higher drug levels could, in fact, lead to better clinical outcomes. Pending specific well-designed, prospective randomized controlled trials, routine therapeutic drug monitoring is not currently recommended, although some referral centers do this as their practice pattern.

Is surgery an option in this case?

The overall 5-year mortality for MAC pulmonary disease was approximately 28% in a retrospective analysis, with patients with cavitary disease at increased risk for death at 5 years.⁴² As such, surgery is an option in selected cases as part of adjunctive therapy along with anti-MAC therapy based on mycobacterial sensitivity. Surgery is used as either a curative approach or a “debulking” measure.¹¹ When present, clearly localized disease, especially in the upper lobe, lends itself best to surgical intervention. Surgical resection of a solitary pulmonary nodule due to MAC, in addition to concomitant medical treatment, is recommended. Surgical intervention should be considered early in the course of the disease because it may provide a cure without prolonged treatment and its associated problems, and this approach may lead to early sputum conversion. Surgery should also be considered in patients with macrolide-resistant or multidrug-resistant MAC infection or in those who cannot tolerate the side effects of therapy, provided that the disease is focal and limited. Patients with poor preoperative lung function have poorer outcomes than those with good lung function, and postoperative complications arising from treatment, especially with a right-sided pneumonectomy, tend to occur more frequently in these patients. Thoracic surgery for NTM pulmonary disease must be considered cautiously, as this is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and is best performed at specialized centers that have expertise and experience in this field.⁴³

Continue to: Mycobacterium abscessus Complex

Mycobacterium abscessus Complex

Case Patient 2

A 64-year-old man who is an ex-smoker presents with chronic cough, mild shortness of breath on exertion, low-grade fever, and unintentional weight loss of 10 lb. Physical exam is unremarkable. The patient was diagnosed with immunoglobulin deficiency (low IgM and low IgG4) in 2002, and has been on replacement therapy since then. He also has had multiple episodes of NTM infection, with MAC and M. kansasii infections diagnosed in 2012-2014, which required 18 months of multi-drug antibiotic treatment that resulted in sputum conversion. Pulmonary function testing done on this visit in 2017 shows mild obstructive impairment.

Chest radiograph and CT scan show bilateral bronchiectasis (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

The results of serial sputum microbiology testing performed over the course of 6 months are outlined below:

• 5/2017 (bronchoalveolar lavage): 2+; M. abscessus
• 9/2017 × 2: smear (–); group IV RGM
• 11/2017: smear (–); M. abscessus (> 50 CFU)
• 12/2017: smear (–); M. abscessus (> 50 CFU)

What are the clinical considerations in this patient with multiple NTM infections?

M. abscessus complex was originally described in soft tissue abscesses and skin infections possibly resulting from soil or water contamination. Subspeciation of M. abscessus complex during laboratory testing is critical to facilitate selection of a specific therapeutic approach; treatment decisions are impacted by the presence of an active erm gene and in vitro macrolide sensitivity, which differ between subspecies. The most acceptable classification outlines 3 species in the M. abscessus complex: Mycobacterium abscessus subsp abscessus, Mycobacterium abscessus subsp bolletii (both with an active erm gene responsible for macrolide resistance), and Mycobacterium abscessus subsp massiliense (with an inactive erm gene and therefore susceptible to macrolides).⁴⁴

RGM typically manifest in skin, soft tissue, and bone, and can cause soft tissue, surgical wound, and catheter-related infections. Although the role of RGM as pulmonary pathogens is unclear, underlying diseases associated with RGM include previously treated mycobacterial disease, coexistent pulmonary diseases with or without MAC, cystic fibrosis, malignancies, and gastroesophageal disorders. M. abscessus is the third most commonly identified respiratory NTM and accounts for the majority (80%) of RGM respiratory isolates. Other NTM reported to cause both lung disease and skin, bone, and joint infections include Mycobacterium simiae, Mycobacterium xenopi, and Mycobacterium malmoense. Ocular granulomatous diseases, such as chorioretinitis and keratitis, have been reported with both RGM and Runyon group III SGM, such as MAC or M. szulgai, following trauma or refractive surgery. These can mimic fungal, herpetic, or amebic keratitis. The pulmonary syndromes associated with multiple culture positivity are seen in elderly women with bronchiectasis or cavitary lung disease and/or associated with gastrointestinal symptoms of acid reflux, with or without achalasia and concomitant lipoid interstitial pneumonia.⁴⁵

Generally, pulmonary disease progresses slowly, but lung disease attributed to RGM can result in respiratory failure. Thus, RGM should be recognized as a possible cause of chronic mycobacterial lung disease, especially in immunocompromised patients, and respiratory isolates should be assessed carefully. Identification and drug susceptibility testing are essential before initiation of treatment for RGM.

What is the approach to management of M. abscessus pulmonary disease in a patient without cystic fibrosis?

The management of M. abscessus pulmonary infection as a subset of RGM requires a considered step-wise approach. The criteria for diagnosis and threshold for starting treatment are the same as those used in the management of MAC pulmonary disease,¹¹ but the treatment of M. abscessus pulmonary infection is more complex and has lower rates of success and cure. Also, antibiotic treatment presents challenges related to rapid identification of the causative organism, nomenclature, resistance patterns, and tolerance of treatment and side effects. If a source such as catheter, access port, or any surgical site is identified, prompt removal and clearance of the infected site are strongly advised

In the absence of any controlled clinical trials, treatment of RGM is based on in vitro susceptibility testing and expert opinion. As in MAC pulmonary disease, macrolides are the mainstay of treatment, with an induction phase of intravenous antibiotics. Treatment may include a combination of injectable aminoglycosides, imipenem, or cefoxitin and oral drugs such as a macrolide (eg, clarithromycin, azithromycin), doxycycline, fluoroquinolones, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, or linezolid. While antibiotic treatment of M. abscessus pulmonary disease is based on in vitro sensitivity pattern to a greater degree than is treatment of MAC pulmonary disease, this approach has significant practical limitations and hence variable applicability. The final choice of antibiotics is best based on the extended susceptibility results, if available. The presence of an active erm gene on a prolonged growth specimen in M. abscessus subsp abscessus and M. abscessus subsp bolletii precludes the use of a macrolide. In such cases, amikacin, especially in an intravenous form, is the mainstay of treatment based on MIC. Recently, there has been a resurgence in interest in the use of clofazimine in combination with amikacin when treatment is not successful in patients with M. abscessus subsp abscessus or M. bolletii with an active erm gene.^45,46 When localized abscess formation is noted, surgery may be the best option, with emphasis on removal of implants and catheters if implicated in RGM infection.

Attention must also be given to confounding pulmonary and associated comorbidities. This includes management of bronchiectasis with appropriately aggressive airway clearance techniques; anti-reflux measures for prevention of micro-aspiration; and management of other comorbid pulmonary conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, and sarcoidosis, if applicable. These interventions play a critical role in clearing the M. abscessus infection, preventing progression of disease, and reducing morbidity. The role of immunomodulatory therapy needs to be considered on a regular, ongoing basis. Identification of genetic factors and correction of immune deficiencies may help in managing the infection.

Case Patient 2 Conclusion

The treatment regimen adopted in this case includes a 3-month course of daily intravenous amikacin and imipenem with oral azithromycin, followed by a continuation phase of azithromycin with clofazimine and linezolid. Airway clearance techniques such as Vest/Acapella/CPT are intensified and monthly intravenous immunoglobulin therapy is continued. The patient responds to treatment, with resolution of his clinical symptoms and reduction in the colony count of M. abscessus in the sputum.

Summary

NTM are ubiquitous in the environment, and NTM infection has variable manifestations, especially in patients with no recognizable immune impairments. Underlying comorbid conditions with bronchiectasis complicate its management. Treatment strategies must be individualized based on degree of involvement, associated comorbidities, immune deficiencies, goals of therapy, outcome-based risk-benefit ratio assessment, and patient engagement and expectations. In diffuse pulmonary disease, drug treatment remains difficult due to poor match of in vitro and in vivo culture sensitivity, side effects of medications, and high failure rates. When a localized resectable foci of infection is identified, especially in RGM disease, surgical treatment may be the best approach in selected patients, but it must be performed in centers with expertise and experience in this field. 

Nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease is a broad term for a group of pulmonary disorders caused and characterized by exposure to environmental mycobacteria other than those belonging to the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and Mycobacterium leprae. Mycobacteria are aerobic, nonmotile organisms that appear positive with acid-fast alcohol stains. Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are ubiquitous in the environment and have been recovered from domestic and natural water sources, soil, and food products, and from around livestock, cattle, and wildlife.^1-3 To date, no evidence exists of human-to-human or animal-to-human transmission of NTM in the general population. Infections in humans are usually acquired from environmental exposures, although the specific source of infection cannot always be identified. Similarly, the mode of infection with NTM has not been established with certainty, but it is highly likely that the organism is implanted, ingested, aspirated, or inhaled. Aerosolization of droplets associated with use of bathroom showerheads and municipal water sources and soil contamination are some of the factors associated with the transmission of infection. Proven routes of transmission include showerheads and potting soil dust.^2,3

NTM pulmonary disease occurs in individuals with or without comorbid conditions such as bronchiectasis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, or structural lung diseases. Slender, middle-aged or elderly white females with marfanoid body habitus, with or without apparent immune or genetic disorders, showing impaired airway and mucus clearance present with this infection as a form of underlying bronchiectasis (Lady Windermere syndrome). It is unclear why NTM infections and escalation to clinical disease occur in certain individuals. Many risk factors, including inherited and acquired defects of host immune response (eg, cystic fibrosis trait and α1 antitrypsin deficiency), have been associated with increased susceptibility to NTM infections.⁴

NTM infection can lead to chronic symptoms, frequent exacerbations, progressive functional and structural lung destruction, and impaired quality of life, and is associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and higher 5-year all-cause mortality. As such, NTM disease is drawing increasing attention at the clinical, academic, and research levels.⁵ This case-based review outlines the clinical features of NTM infection, with a focus on the challenges in diagnosis, treatment, and management of NTM pulmonary disease. The cases use Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), a slow-growing mycobacteria (SGM), and Mycobacterium abscessus, a rapidly growing mycobacteria (RGM), as prototypes in a non–cystic fibrosis, non-HIV clinical setting.

Epidemiology

Of the almost 200 isolated species of NTM, the most prevalent pathogens for respiratory disease in the United States are MAC, Mycobacterium kansasii, and M. abscessus. MAC accounts for more than 80% of cases of NTM respiratory disease in the United States.⁶ The prevalence of NTM disease is increasing at a rate of about 8% each year, with 75,000 to 105,000 patients diagnosed with NTM lung disease in the United States annually. NTM infections in the United States are increasing among patients aged 65 years and older, a population that is expected to nearly double by 2030.^7,8

Isolation and prevalence of many NTM species are higher in certain geographic areas of the United States, especially in the southeast. The US coastal regions have a higher prevalence of NTM pulmonary disease, and account for 70% of NTM cases in the United States each year. Half of patients diagnosed with NTM lung disease reside in 7 states: Florida, New York, Texas, California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Ohio, with 1 in 7 residing in Florida. Three parishes in Louisiana are among the top 10 counties with the highest prevalence in United States. The prevalence of NTM infection–associated hospitalizations is increasing worldwide as well. Co-infection with tuberculosis and multiple NTMs in individual patients has been observed clinically and documented in patients with and without HIV.^9,10

It is not clear why the prevalence of NTM pulmonary disease is increasing, but there may be several contributing factors: (1) an increased awareness and identification of NTM infection sources in the environment; (2) an expanding cohort of immunocompromised individuals with exogenous or endogenous immune deficiencies; (3) availability of improved diagnostic techniques, such as use of high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), DNA probes, and gene sequencing; and (4) an increased awareness of the morbidity and mortality associated with NTM pulmonary disease. However, it is important to recognize that to best understand the clinical relevance of epidemiologic studies based on laboratory diagnosis and identification, the findings must be evaluated by correlating them with the microbiological and other clinical criteria established by the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines.¹¹

Continue to: Mycobacterium avium Complex

Mycobacterium avium Complex

Case Patient 1

A 48-year-old woman who has never smoked and has no past medical problems, except seasonal allergic rhinitis and “colds and flu-like illness” once or twice a year, is evaluated for a chronic lingering cough with occasional sputum production. The patient denies any other chronic symptoms and is otherwise active. Physical examination reveals no specific findings except mild pectus excavatum and mild scoliosis. Body mass index is 22 kg/m². Chest radiograph shows nonspecific increased markings in the lower zones. Computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest reveals minimal nodular and cylindrical bronchiectasis in both lungs (Figure 1). No previous radiographs are available for comparison. The patient is HIV-negative. Sputum tests reveal normal flora, and both fungus and acid-fast bacilli smear are negative. Culture for mycobacteria shows scanty growth of MAC in 1 specimen.

What is the clinical presentation of MAC pulmonary disease?

Among NTM, MAC is the most common cause of pulmonary disease worldwide.⁶ MAC primarily includes 2 species: M. avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare. M. avium is the more important pathogen in disseminated disease, whereas M. intracellulare is the more common respiratory pathogen.¹¹ These organisms are genetically similar and generally not differentiated in the clinical microbiology laboratory, although there are isolated reports in the literature suggesting differences in prevalence, presentation, and prognosis in M. avium infection versus M. intracellulare infection.¹²

Three major disease syndromes are produced by MAC in humans: pulmonary disease, usually in adults whose systemic immunity is intact; disseminated disease, usually in patients with advanced HIV infection; and cervical lymphadenitis.¹³ Pulmonary disease caused by MAC may take on 1 of several clinically different forms, including asymptomatic “colonization” or persistent minimal infection without obvious clinical significance; endobronchial involvement; progressive pulmonary disease with radiographic and clinical deterioration and nodular bronchiectasis or cavitary lung disease; hypersensitivity pneumonitis; or persistent, overwhelming mycobacterial growth with symptomatic manifestations, often in a lung with underlying damage due to either chronic obstructive lung disease or pulmonary fibrosis (Table 1).¹⁴

Cavitary Disease

The traditionally recognized presentation of MAC lung disease has been apical cavitary lung disease in men in their late 40s and early 50s who have a history of cigarette smoking, and frequently, excessive alcohol use. If left untreated, or in the case of erratic treatment or macrolide drug resistance, this form of disease is generally progressive within a relatively short time and can result in extensive cavitary lung destruction and progressive respiratory failure.¹⁵

Nodular Bronchiectasis

The more common presentation of MAC lung disease, which is outlined in the case described here, is interstitial nodular infiltrates, frequently involving the right middle lobe or lingula and predominantly occurring in postmenopausal, nonsmoking white women. This is sometimes labelled “Lady Windermere syndrome.” These patients with M. avium infection appear to have similar clinical characteristics and body types, including lean build, scoliosis, pectus excavatum, and mitral valve prolapse.^16,17 The mechanism by which this body morphotype predisposes to pulmonary mycobacterial infection is not defined, but ineffective mucociliary clearance is a possible explanation. Evidence suggests that some patients may be predisposed to NTM lung disease because of preexisting bronchiectasis. Some potential etiologies of bronchiectasis in this population include chronic sinusitis, gastroesophageal reflux with chronic aspiration, α1 antitrypsin deficiency, and cystic fibrosis genetic traits and mutations.¹⁸ Risk factors for increased morbidity and mortality include the development of cavitary disease, age, weight loss, lower body mass index, and other comorbid conditions.

This form of disease, termed nodular bronchiectasis, tends to have a much slower progression than cavitary disease, such that long-term follow-up (months to years) may be necessary to demonstrate clinical or radiographic changes.¹¹ The radiographic term “tree-in-bud” has been used to describe what may reflect inflammatory changes, including bronchiolitis. High-resolution CT scans of the chest are especially helpful for diagnosing this pattern of MAC lung disease, as bronchiectasis and small nodules may not be easily discernible on plain chest radiograph. The nodular/bronchiectasis radiographic pattern can also be seen with other NTM pathogens, including M. abscessus, Mycobacterium simiae, and M. kansasii. Solitary nodules and dense consolidation have also been described. Pleural effusions are uncommon, but reactive pleural thickening is frequently seen. Co-pathogens may be isolated from culture, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and, occasionally, other NTM such as M. abscessus or Mycobacterium chelonae.^19-21

Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis, initially described in patients who were exposed to hot tubs, mimics allergic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, with respiratory symptoms and culture/tissue identification of MAC or sometimes other NTM. It is unclear whether hypersensitivity pneumonitis is an inflammatory process, an infection, or both, and opinion regarding the need for specific antibiotic treatment is divided.^11,22 However, avoidance of exposure is prudent and recommended.

Disseminated Disease

Disseminated NTM disease is associated with very low CD4+ lymphocyte counts and is seen in approximately 5% of patients with HIV infection.^23-25 Although disseminated NTM disease is rarely seen in immunosuppressed patients without HIV infection, it has been reported in patients who have undergone renal or cardiac transplant, patients on long-term corticosteroid therapy, and those with leukemia or lymphoma. More than 90% of infections are caused by MAC; other potential pathogens include M. kansasii, M. chelonae, M. abscessus, and Mycobacterium haemophilum. Although seen less frequently since the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy, disseminated infection can develop progressively from an apparently indolent or localized infection or a respiratory or gastrointestinal source. Signs and symptoms of disseminated infection (specifically MAC-associated disease) are nonspecific and include fever, night sweats, weight loss, and abdominal tenderness. Disseminated MAC disease occurs primarily in patients with more advanced HIV disease (CD4+ count typically < 50 cells/μL). Clinically, disseminated MAC manifests as intermittent or persistent fever, constitutional symptoms with organomegaly and organ-specific abnormalities (eg, anemia, neutropenia from bone marrow involvement, adenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly), and elevations of liver enzymes or lung infiltrates from pulmonary involvement.

Continue to: What are the criteria for diagnosing NTM pulmonary disease?

What are the criteria for diagnosing NTM pulmonary disease?

The diagnosis of NTM disease is based on clinical, radiologic, and mycobacterial correlation with good communication between the experts in this field. The ATS/IDSA criteria for diagnosing NTM lung disease are shown in Figure 2. These criteria best apply to MAC, M. kansasii, and M. abscessus, but are also clinically applied to other NTM respiratory pathogens. The diagnosis of MAC infection is most readily established by culture of blood, bone marrow, respiratory secretions/fluid, or tissue specimens from suspected sites of involvement. Due to erratic shedding of MAC into the respiratory secretions in patients with nodular bronchiectasis, as compared to those with the cavitary form of the disease, sputum may be intermittently positive, with variable colony counts and polyclonal infections.¹² Prior to the advent of high-resolution CT, isolation of MAC organisms from the sputum of such patients was frequently dismissed as colonization.

Mycobacterial Testing

Because of the nonspecific symptoms and lack of diagnostic specificity of chest imaging, the diagnosis of NTM lung disease requires microbiologic confirmation. Specimens sent to the laboratory for identification of NTM must be handled with care to prevent contamination and false-positive results. Transport media and preservatives should be avoided, and transportation of the specimens should be prompt. These measures will prevent bacterial overgrowth. Furthermore, the yield of NTM may be affected if the patient has used antibiotics, such as macrolides and fluoroquinolones, prior to obtaining the specimen.

NTM should be identified at the species and subspecies level, although this is not practical in community practice settings. The preferred staining procedure in the laboratory is the fluorochrome method. Some species require special growth conditions and/or lower incubation temperatures, and other identification methods may have to be employed, such as DNA probes, polymerase chain reaction genotyping, nucleic acid sequence determination, and high-performance liquid chromatography. As a gold standard, clinical specimens for mycobacterial cultures should be inoculated onto 1 or more solid media (eg, Middlebrook 7H11 media and/or Lowenstein-Jensen media, the former of which is the preferred medium for NTM) and into a liquid medium (eg, BACTEC 12B broth or Mycobacteria growth indicator tube broth). Growth of visible colonies on solid media typically requires 2 to 4 weeks, but liquid media (eg, the radiometric BACTEC system), used as a supplementary and not as an exclusive test, usually produce results within 10 to 14 days. Furthermore, even after initial growth, identification of specific isolates based on the growth characteristics on solid media requires additional time. Use of specific nucleic acid probes for MAC and M. kansasii and HPLC testing of mycolic acid patterns in acid-fast bacilli smear–positive specimens can reduce the turnaround time of specific identification of a primary culture–positive sample. However, HPLC is not sufficient for definitive identification of many NTM species, including the RGM. Other newer techniques, including 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing and polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis, also allow NTM to be identified and speciated more reliably and rapidly from clinical specimens.

Cost and other practical considerations limit widespread adoption of these techniques. However, the recognition that M. abscessus can be separated into more than 1 subspecies, and that there are important prognostic implications of that separation, lends urgency to the broader adoption of newer molecular techniques in the mycobacteriology laboratory. Susceptibility testing is based on the broth microdilution method; RGM usually grow within 7 days of subculture, and the laboratory time to culture is a helpful hint, although not necessarily specific. Recognizing the morphology of mycobacterial colony growth may also be helpful in identification.

Are skin tests helpful in diagnosing NTM infection?

Tuberculin skin testing remains a nonspecific marker of mycobacterial infection and does not help in further elucidating NTM infection. However, epidemiologic and laboratory studies with well-characterized antigens have shown that dual skin testing with tuberculosis- versus NTM-derived tuberculin can discriminate between prior NTM and prior tuberculosis disease. Species-specific skin test antigens are not commercially available and are not helpful in the diagnosis of NTM disease because of cross-reactivity of M. tuberculosis and some NTM. However, increased prevalence of NTM sensitization based on purified protein derivative testing has been noted in a recent survey, which is consistent with an observed increase in the rates of NTM infections, specifically MAC, in the United States.^26,27

Interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) are now being used as an alternative to tuberculin skin testing to diagnose M. tuberculosis infection. Certain NTM species also contain gene sequences that encode for ESAT-6 or CFP-10 antigens used in the IGRAs, and hence, yield a positive IGRA test. These include M. marinum, M. szulgai, and M. kansasii.^28,29 However, MAC organisms do not produce positive results on assays that use these antigens.

Continue to: What is the approach to management of NTM pulmonary disease?

What is the approach to management of NTM pulmonary disease?

The correlation of symptoms with radiographic and microbiologic evidence is essential to categorize the disease and determine the need for therapy. Making the diagnosis of NTM lung disease does not necessitate the institution of therapy. The decision to treat should be weighed against potential risks and benefits to the individual patient based on symptomatic, radiographic, and microbiologic criteria, as well as underlying systemic or pulmonary immune status. In the absence of evidence of clinical, radiologic, or mycobacterial progression of disease, pursuing airway clearance therapy and clinical surveillance without initiating specific anti-MAC therapy is a reasonable option.¹¹ Identifying the sustained presence of NTM infection, especially MAC, in a patient with underlying clinical and radiographic evidence of bronchiectasis is of value in determining comprehensive treatment and management strategies. Close observation is indicated if the decision not to treat is made. If treatment is initiated, comprehensive management includes long-term follow-up with periodic bacteriologic surveillance, watching for drug toxicity and drug-drug interactions, ensuring adherence and compliance to treatment, and managing comorbidity.

The Bronchiectasis Severity Index is a useful clinical predictive tool that identifies patients at risk of future mortality, hospitalization, and exacerbations and can be used to evaluate the need for specific treatment.30 The index is based on dyspnea score, lung function tests, colonization of pathogens, and extent of disease.

Case 1 Continued

After approximately 2 months of observation and symptomatic treatment, without specific antibiotic therapy, the patient’s symptoms continue. She now develops intermittent hemoptysis. Repeat sputum studies reveal moderate growth of M. avium. A follow-up CT scan shows progression of disease, with an increase in the tree-in-bud pattern (Figure 3).

What treatment protocols are recommended for MAC pulmonary disease?

As per the ATS/IDSA statement, macrolides are the mainstay of treatment for pulmonary MAC disease.¹¹ Macrolides achieve an increased concentration in the lung, and when used for treatment of pulmonary MAC disease, there is a strong correlation between in vitro susceptibility, in vivo (clinical) response, and the immunomodulating effects of macrolides.^31,32 Macrolide-containing regimens have demonstrated efficacy in patients with MAC pulmonary disease^33,34; however, macrolide monotherapy should be avoided to prevent the development of resistance.

At the outset, it is critical to establish the objective criteria for determining response and to ensure that the patient understands the goals of the treatment and expectations of the treatment plan. Moreover, experts suggest that due to the possibility of drug intolerance, side effects, and the need for prolonged therapy, a “step ladder” ramping up approach to treatment could be adopted, with gradual introduction of therapy within a short time period; this approach may improve compliance and adherence to treatment.¹¹ If this approach is used, the doses may have to be divided. Patients who are unable to tolerate daily medications, even with dosage adjustment, should be tried on an intermittent treatment regimen. Older female patients frequently require gradual introduction of medications (ie, 1 medication added to the regimen every 1 to 2 weeks) to evaluate tolerance to each medication and medication dose.¹¹ Commonly encountered adverse effects of NTM treatment include intolerance to clarithromycin due to gastrointestinal problems, low body mass index, or age older than 70 years.

After determining that the patient requires therapy, the standard recommended treatment for MAC pulmonary disease includes the following: for most patients with nodular/bronchiectasis disease, a thrice-weekly regimen of clarithromycin (1000 mg) or azithromycin (500 mg), rifampin (600 mg), and ethambutol (25 mg/kg) is recommended. For patients with cavitary MAC pulmonary disease or severe nodular/bronchiectasis disease, the guidelines recommend a daily regimen of clarithromycin (500-1000 mg) or azithromycin (250 mg), rifampin (600 mg) or rifabutin (150–300 mg), and ethambutol (15 mg/kg), with consideration of intravenous (IV) amikacin 3 times/week early in therapy (Table 2).¹¹

The treatment of MAC hypersensitivity-like disease speaks to the controversy of whether this is an inflammatory process, infectious process, or a combination of inflammation and infection. Avoidance of exposure is the mainstay of management. In some cases, steroids are used with or without a short course of anti-MAC therapy (ie, clarithromycin or azithromycin with rifampin and ethambutol).

Prophylaxis for disseminated MAC disease should be given to adults with HIV infection who have a CD4+ count less than 50 cells/μL. Azithromycin 1200 mg/week or clarithromycin 1000 mg/day has proven efficacy, and rifabutin 300 mg/day is also effective but less well tolerated. Rifabutin is more active in vitro against MAC than rifampin, and is used in HIV-positive patients because of drug-drug interaction between antiretroviral drugs and rifampin.

Continue to: Case 1 Continued

Case 1 Continued

The patient is treated with clarithromycin, rifampin, and ethambutol for 1 year, with sputum conversion after 9 months. In the latter part of her treatment, she experiences decreased visual acuity. Treatment is discontinued prematurely after 1 year due to drug toxicity and continued intolerance to drug therapy. The patient remains asymptomatic for 8 months, and then begins to experience mild to moderate hemoptysis, with increasing cough and sputum production associated with postural changes during exercise. Physical examination overall remains unchanged. Three sputum results reveal heavy growth of MAC, and a CT scan of the chest shows a cavitary lesion in the left upper lobe along with the nodular bronchiectasis (Figure 4).

What are the management options at this stage?

Based on this patient’s continued symptoms, progression of radiologic abnormalities, and current culture growth, she requires re-treatment. With the adverse effects associated with ethambutol during the first round of therapy, the drug regimen needs to be modified. Several considerations are relevant at this stage. Relapse rates range from 20% to 30% after treatment with a macrolide-based therapy.^11,34 Obtaining a culture-sensitivity profile is imperative in these cases. Of note, treatment should not be discontinued altogether, but instead the toxic agent should be removed from the treatment regimen. Continuing treatment with a 2-drug regimen of clarithromycin and rifampin may be considered in this patient. Re-infection with multiple genotypes may also occur after successful drug therapy, but this is primarily seen in MAC patients with nodular bronchiectasis.^34,35 Patients in whom previous therapy has failed, even those with macrolide-susceptible MAC isolates, are less likely to respond to subsequent therapy. Data suggest that intermittent medication dosing is not effective for patients with severe or cavitary disease or in those in whom previous therapy has failed.³⁶ In this case, treatment should include a daily 3-drug therapy, with an injectable thrice-weekly aminoglycoside. Other agents such as linezolid and clofazimine may have to be tried. Cycloserine, ethionamide, and other agents are sometimes used, but their efficacy is unproven and doubtful. Pyrazinamide and isoniazid have no activity against MAC.

Treatment Failure and Drug Resistance

Treatment failure is considered to have occurred if patients have not had a response (microbiologic, clinical, or radiographic) after 6 months of appropriate therapy or had not achieved conversion of sputum to culture-negative after 12 months of appropriate therapy.¹¹ This occurs in about 40% of patients. Multiple factors can interfere with the successful treatment of MAC pulmonary disease, including medication nonadherence, medication side effects or intolerance, lack of response to a medication regimen, or the emergence of a macrolide-resistant or multidrug-resistant strain. Inducible macrolide resistance remains a potential factor.^34-36 A number of characteristics of NTM contribute to the poor response to currently used antibiotics: the organisms have a lipid outer membrane and prefer to adhere to surfaces and form biofilms, which makes them relatively impermeable to antibiotics.³⁷ Also, NTM replicate in phagocytic cells, allowing them to subvert normal cellular defense mechanisms. Furthermore, NTM can display colony variants, whereby single colony isolates switch between antibiotic-susceptible and -resistant variants. These factors have also impeded in development of new antibiotics for NTM infection.³⁷

Recent limited approval of amikacin liposomal inhalation suspension (ALIS) for treatment failure and refractory MAC infection in combination with guideline-based antimicrobial therapy (GBT) is a promising addition to the available treatment armamentarium. In a multinational trial, the addition of ALIS to GBT for treatment-refractory MAC lung disease achieved significantly greater culture conversion rates by month 6 than GBT alone, with comparable rates of serious adverse events.³⁸

Is therapeutic drug monitoring recommended during treatment of MAC pulmonary disease?

Treatment failure may also be drug-related, including poor drug penetration into the damaged lung tissue or drug-drug interactions leading to suboptimal drug levels. Peak serum concentrations have been found to be below target ranges in approximately 50% of patients using a macrolide and ethambutol. Concurrent use of rifampin decreases the peak serum concentration of macrolides and quinolones, with acceptable target levels seen in only 18% to 57% of cases. Whether this alters patient outcomes is not clear.^39-42 Factors identified as contributing to the poor response to therapy include poor compliance, cavitary disease, previous treatment for MAC pulmonary disease, and a history of chronic obstructive lung disease. Studies by Koh and colleagues⁴⁰ and van Ingen and colleagues⁴¹ with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics data showed that, in patients on MAC treatment with both clarithromycin and rifampicin, plasma levels of clarithromycin were lower than the recommended minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) against MAC for that drug. The studies also showed that rifampicin lowered clarithromycin concentrations more than did rifabutin, with the AUC/MIC ratio being suboptimal in nearly half the cases. However, low plasma clarithromycin concentrations did not have any correlation with treatment outcomes, as the peak plasma drug concentrations and the peak plasma drug concentration/MIC ratios did not differ between patients with unfavorable treatment outcomes and those with favorable outcomes. This is further compounded by the fact that macrolides achieve higher levels in lung tissue than in plasma, and hence the significance of low plasma levels is unclear; however, it is postulated that achieving higher drug levels could, in fact, lead to better clinical outcomes. Pending specific well-designed, prospective randomized controlled trials, routine therapeutic drug monitoring is not currently recommended, although some referral centers do this as their practice pattern.

Is surgery an option in this case?

The overall 5-year mortality for MAC pulmonary disease was approximately 28% in a retrospective analysis, with patients with cavitary disease at increased risk for death at 5 years.⁴² As such, surgery is an option in selected cases as part of adjunctive therapy along with anti-MAC therapy based on mycobacterial sensitivity. Surgery is used as either a curative approach or a “debulking” measure.¹¹ When present, clearly localized disease, especially in the upper lobe, lends itself best to surgical intervention. Surgical resection of a solitary pulmonary nodule due to MAC, in addition to concomitant medical treatment, is recommended. Surgical intervention should be considered early in the course of the disease because it may provide a cure without prolonged treatment and its associated problems, and this approach may lead to early sputum conversion. Surgery should also be considered in patients with macrolide-resistant or multidrug-resistant MAC infection or in those who cannot tolerate the side effects of therapy, provided that the disease is focal and limited. Patients with poor preoperative lung function have poorer outcomes than those with good lung function, and postoperative complications arising from treatment, especially with a right-sided pneumonectomy, tend to occur more frequently in these patients. Thoracic surgery for NTM pulmonary disease must be considered cautiously, as this is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and is best performed at specialized centers that have expertise and experience in this field.⁴³

Continue to: Mycobacterium abscessus Complex

Mycobacterium abscessus Complex

Case Patient 2

A 64-year-old man who is an ex-smoker presents with chronic cough, mild shortness of breath on exertion, low-grade fever, and unintentional weight loss of 10 lb. Physical exam is unremarkable. The patient was diagnosed with immunoglobulin deficiency (low IgM and low IgG4) in 2002, and has been on replacement therapy since then. He also has had multiple episodes of NTM infection, with MAC and M. kansasii infections diagnosed in 2012-2014, which required 18 months of multi-drug antibiotic treatment that resulted in sputum conversion. Pulmonary function testing done on this visit in 2017 shows mild obstructive impairment.

Chest radiograph and CT scan show bilateral bronchiectasis (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

The results of serial sputum microbiology testing performed over the course of 6 months are outlined below:

• 5/2017 (bronchoalveolar lavage): 2+; M. abscessus
• 9/2017 × 2: smear (–); group IV RGM
• 11/2017: smear (–); M. abscessus (> 50 CFU)
• 12/2017: smear (–); M. abscessus (> 50 CFU)

What are the clinical considerations in this patient with multiple NTM infections?

M. abscessus complex was originally described in soft tissue abscesses and skin infections possibly resulting from soil or water contamination. Subspeciation of M. abscessus complex during laboratory testing is critical to facilitate selection of a specific therapeutic approach; treatment decisions are impacted by the presence of an active erm gene and in vitro macrolide sensitivity, which differ between subspecies. The most acceptable classification outlines 3 species in the M. abscessus complex: Mycobacterium abscessus subsp abscessus, Mycobacterium abscessus subsp bolletii (both with an active erm gene responsible for macrolide resistance), and Mycobacterium abscessus subsp massiliense (with an inactive erm gene and therefore susceptible to macrolides).⁴⁴

RGM typically manifest in skin, soft tissue, and bone, and can cause soft tissue, surgical wound, and catheter-related infections. Although the role of RGM as pulmonary pathogens is unclear, underlying diseases associated with RGM include previously treated mycobacterial disease, coexistent pulmonary diseases with or without MAC, cystic fibrosis, malignancies, and gastroesophageal disorders. M. abscessus is the third most commonly identified respiratory NTM and accounts for the majority (80%) of RGM respiratory isolates. Other NTM reported to cause both lung disease and skin, bone, and joint infections include Mycobacterium simiae, Mycobacterium xenopi, and Mycobacterium malmoense. Ocular granulomatous diseases, such as chorioretinitis and keratitis, have been reported with both RGM and Runyon group III SGM, such as MAC or M. szulgai, following trauma or refractive surgery. These can mimic fungal, herpetic, or amebic keratitis. The pulmonary syndromes associated with multiple culture positivity are seen in elderly women with bronchiectasis or cavitary lung disease and/or associated with gastrointestinal symptoms of acid reflux, with or without achalasia and concomitant lipoid interstitial pneumonia.⁴⁵

Generally, pulmonary disease progresses slowly, but lung disease attributed to RGM can result in respiratory failure. Thus, RGM should be recognized as a possible cause of chronic mycobacterial lung disease, especially in immunocompromised patients, and respiratory isolates should be assessed carefully. Identification and drug susceptibility testing are essential before initiation of treatment for RGM.

What is the approach to management of M. abscessus pulmonary disease in a patient without cystic fibrosis?

The management of M. abscessus pulmonary infection as a subset of RGM requires a considered step-wise approach. The criteria for diagnosis and threshold for starting treatment are the same as those used in the management of MAC pulmonary disease,¹¹ but the treatment of M. abscessus pulmonary infection is more complex and has lower rates of success and cure. Also, antibiotic treatment presents challenges related to rapid identification of the causative organism, nomenclature, resistance patterns, and tolerance of treatment and side effects. If a source such as catheter, access port, or any surgical site is identified, prompt removal and clearance of the infected site are strongly advised

In the absence of any controlled clinical trials, treatment of RGM is based on in vitro susceptibility testing and expert opinion. As in MAC pulmonary disease, macrolides are the mainstay of treatment, with an induction phase of intravenous antibiotics. Treatment may include a combination of injectable aminoglycosides, imipenem, or cefoxitin and oral drugs such as a macrolide (eg, clarithromycin, azithromycin), doxycycline, fluoroquinolones, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, or linezolid. While antibiotic treatment of M. abscessus pulmonary disease is based on in vitro sensitivity pattern to a greater degree than is treatment of MAC pulmonary disease, this approach has significant practical limitations and hence variable applicability. The final choice of antibiotics is best based on the extended susceptibility results, if available. The presence of an active erm gene on a prolonged growth specimen in M. abscessus subsp abscessus and M. abscessus subsp bolletii precludes the use of a macrolide. In such cases, amikacin, especially in an intravenous form, is the mainstay of treatment based on MIC. Recently, there has been a resurgence in interest in the use of clofazimine in combination with amikacin when treatment is not successful in patients with M. abscessus subsp abscessus or M. bolletii with an active erm gene.^45,46 When localized abscess formation is noted, surgery may be the best option, with emphasis on removal of implants and catheters if implicated in RGM infection.

Attention must also be given to confounding pulmonary and associated comorbidities. This includes management of bronchiectasis with appropriately aggressive airway clearance techniques; anti-reflux measures for prevention of micro-aspiration; and management of other comorbid pulmonary conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, and sarcoidosis, if applicable. These interventions play a critical role in clearing the M. abscessus infection, preventing progression of disease, and reducing morbidity. The role of immunomodulatory therapy needs to be considered on a regular, ongoing basis. Identification of genetic factors and correction of immune deficiencies may help in managing the infection.

Case Patient 2 Conclusion

The treatment regimen adopted in this case includes a 3-month course of daily intravenous amikacin and imipenem with oral azithromycin, followed by a continuation phase of azithromycin with clofazimine and linezolid. Airway clearance techniques such as Vest/Acapella/CPT are intensified and monthly intravenous immunoglobulin therapy is continued. The patient responds to treatment, with resolution of his clinical symptoms and reduction in the colony count of M. abscessus in the sputum.

Summary

NTM are ubiquitous in the environment, and NTM infection has variable manifestations, especially in patients with no recognizable immune impairments. Underlying comorbid conditions with bronchiectasis complicate its management. Treatment strategies must be individualized based on degree of involvement, associated comorbidities, immune deficiencies, goals of therapy, outcome-based risk-benefit ratio assessment, and patient engagement and expectations. In diffuse pulmonary disease, drug treatment remains difficult due to poor match of in vitro and in vivo culture sensitivity, side effects of medications, and high failure rates. When a localized resectable foci of infection is identified, especially in RGM disease, surgical treatment may be the best approach in selected patients, but it must be performed in centers with expertise and experience in this field. 

Nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease is a broad term for a group of pulmonary disorders caused and characterized by exposure to environmental mycobacteria other than those belonging to the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and Mycobacterium leprae. Mycobacteria are aerobic, nonmotile organisms that appear positive with acid-fast alcohol stains. Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are ubiquitous in the environment and have been recovered from domestic and natural water sources, soil, and food products, and from around livestock, cattle, and wildlife.^1-3 To date, no evidence exists of human-to-human or animal-to-human transmission of NTM in the general population. Infections in humans are usually acquired from environmental exposures, although the specific source of infection cannot always be identified. Similarly, the mode of infection with NTM has not been established with certainty, but it is highly likely that the organism is implanted, ingested, aspirated, or inhaled. Aerosolization of droplets associated with use of bathroom showerheads and municipal water sources and soil contamination are some of the factors associated with the transmission of infection. Proven routes of transmission include showerheads and potting soil dust.^2,3

NTM pulmonary disease occurs in individuals with or without comorbid conditions such as bronchiectasis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, or structural lung diseases. Slender, middle-aged or elderly white females with marfanoid body habitus, with or without apparent immune or genetic disorders, showing impaired airway and mucus clearance present with this infection as a form of underlying bronchiectasis (Lady Windermere syndrome). It is unclear why NTM infections and escalation to clinical disease occur in certain individuals. Many risk factors, including inherited and acquired defects of host immune response (eg, cystic fibrosis trait and α1 antitrypsin deficiency), have been associated with increased susceptibility to NTM infections.⁴

NTM infection can lead to chronic symptoms, frequent exacerbations, progressive functional and structural lung destruction, and impaired quality of life, and is associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and higher 5-year all-cause mortality. As such, NTM disease is drawing increasing attention at the clinical, academic, and research levels.⁵ This case-based review outlines the clinical features of NTM infection, with a focus on the challenges in diagnosis, treatment, and management of NTM pulmonary disease. The cases use Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), a slow-growing mycobacteria (SGM), and Mycobacterium abscessus, a rapidly growing mycobacteria (RGM), as prototypes in a non–cystic fibrosis, non-HIV clinical setting.

Epidemiology

Of the almost 200 isolated species of NTM, the most prevalent pathogens for respiratory disease in the United States are MAC, Mycobacterium kansasii, and M. abscessus. MAC accounts for more than 80% of cases of NTM respiratory disease in the United States.⁶ The prevalence of NTM disease is increasing at a rate of about 8% each year, with 75,000 to 105,000 patients diagnosed with NTM lung disease in the United States annually. NTM infections in the United States are increasing among patients aged 65 years and older, a population that is expected to nearly double by 2030.^7,8

Isolation and prevalence of many NTM species are higher in certain geographic areas of the United States, especially in the southeast. The US coastal regions have a higher prevalence of NTM pulmonary disease, and account for 70% of NTM cases in the United States each year. Half of patients diagnosed with NTM lung disease reside in 7 states: Florida, New York, Texas, California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Ohio, with 1 in 7 residing in Florida. Three parishes in Louisiana are among the top 10 counties with the highest prevalence in United States. The prevalence of NTM infection–associated hospitalizations is increasing worldwide as well. Co-infection with tuberculosis and multiple NTMs in individual patients has been observed clinically and documented in patients with and without HIV.^9,10

It is not clear why the prevalence of NTM pulmonary disease is increasing, but there may be several contributing factors: (1) an increased awareness and identification of NTM infection sources in the environment; (2) an expanding cohort of immunocompromised individuals with exogenous or endogenous immune deficiencies; (3) availability of improved diagnostic techniques, such as use of high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), DNA probes, and gene sequencing; and (4) an increased awareness of the morbidity and mortality associated with NTM pulmonary disease. However, it is important to recognize that to best understand the clinical relevance of epidemiologic studies based on laboratory diagnosis and identification, the findings must be evaluated by correlating them with the microbiological and other clinical criteria established by the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines.¹¹

Continue to: Mycobacterium avium Complex

Mycobacterium avium Complex

Case Patient 1

A 48-year-old woman who has never smoked and has no past medical problems, except seasonal allergic rhinitis and “colds and flu-like illness” once or twice a year, is evaluated for a chronic lingering cough with occasional sputum production. The patient denies any other chronic symptoms and is otherwise active. Physical examination reveals no specific findings except mild pectus excavatum and mild scoliosis. Body mass index is 22 kg/m². Chest radiograph shows nonspecific increased markings in the lower zones. Computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest reveals minimal nodular and cylindrical bronchiectasis in both lungs (Figure 1). No previous radiographs are available for comparison. The patient is HIV-negative. Sputum tests reveal normal flora, and both fungus and acid-fast bacilli smear are negative. Culture for mycobacteria shows scanty growth of MAC in 1 specimen.

What is the clinical presentation of MAC pulmonary disease?

Among NTM, MAC is the most common cause of pulmonary disease worldwide.⁶ MAC primarily includes 2 species: M. avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare. M. avium is the more important pathogen in disseminated disease, whereas M. intracellulare is the more common respiratory pathogen.¹¹ These organisms are genetically similar and generally not differentiated in the clinical microbiology laboratory, although there are isolated reports in the literature suggesting differences in prevalence, presentation, and prognosis in M. avium infection versus M. intracellulare infection.¹²

Three major disease syndromes are produced by MAC in humans: pulmonary disease, usually in adults whose systemic immunity is intact; disseminated disease, usually in patients with advanced HIV infection; and cervical lymphadenitis.¹³ Pulmonary disease caused by MAC may take on 1 of several clinically different forms, including asymptomatic “colonization” or persistent minimal infection without obvious clinical significance; endobronchial involvement; progressive pulmonary disease with radiographic and clinical deterioration and nodular bronchiectasis or cavitary lung disease; hypersensitivity pneumonitis; or persistent, overwhelming mycobacterial growth with symptomatic manifestations, often in a lung with underlying damage due to either chronic obstructive lung disease or pulmonary fibrosis (Table 1).¹⁴

Cavitary Disease

The traditionally recognized presentation of MAC lung disease has been apical cavitary lung disease in men in their late 40s and early 50s who have a history of cigarette smoking, and frequently, excessive alcohol use. If left untreated, or in the case of erratic treatment or macrolide drug resistance, this form of disease is generally progressive within a relatively short time and can result in extensive cavitary lung destruction and progressive respiratory failure.¹⁵

Nodular Bronchiectasis

The more common presentation of MAC lung disease, which is outlined in the case described here, is interstitial nodular infiltrates, frequently involving the right middle lobe or lingula and predominantly occurring in postmenopausal, nonsmoking white women. This is sometimes labelled “Lady Windermere syndrome.” These patients with M. avium infection appear to have similar clinical characteristics and body types, including lean build, scoliosis, pectus excavatum, and mitral valve prolapse.^16,17 The mechanism by which this body morphotype predisposes to pulmonary mycobacterial infection is not defined, but ineffective mucociliary clearance is a possible explanation. Evidence suggests that some patients may be predisposed to NTM lung disease because of preexisting bronchiectasis. Some potential etiologies of bronchiectasis in this population include chronic sinusitis, gastroesophageal reflux with chronic aspiration, α1 antitrypsin deficiency, and cystic fibrosis genetic traits and mutations.¹⁸ Risk factors for increased morbidity and mortality include the development of cavitary disease, age, weight loss, lower body mass index, and other comorbid conditions.

This form of disease, termed nodular bronchiectasis, tends to have a much slower progression than cavitary disease, such that long-term follow-up (months to years) may be necessary to demonstrate clinical or radiographic changes.¹¹ The radiographic term “tree-in-bud” has been used to describe what may reflect inflammatory changes, including bronchiolitis. High-resolution CT scans of the chest are especially helpful for diagnosing this pattern of MAC lung disease, as bronchiectasis and small nodules may not be easily discernible on plain chest radiograph. The nodular/bronchiectasis radiographic pattern can also be seen with other NTM pathogens, including M. abscessus, Mycobacterium simiae, and M. kansasii. Solitary nodules and dense consolidation have also been described. Pleural effusions are uncommon, but reactive pleural thickening is frequently seen. Co-pathogens may be isolated from culture, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and, occasionally, other NTM such as M. abscessus or Mycobacterium chelonae.^19-21

Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis, initially described in patients who were exposed to hot tubs, mimics allergic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, with respiratory symptoms and culture/tissue identification of MAC or sometimes other NTM. It is unclear whether hypersensitivity pneumonitis is an inflammatory process, an infection, or both, and opinion regarding the need for specific antibiotic treatment is divided.^11,22 However, avoidance of exposure is prudent and recommended.

Disseminated Disease

Disseminated NTM disease is associated with very low CD4+ lymphocyte counts and is seen in approximately 5% of patients with HIV infection.^23-25 Although disseminated NTM disease is rarely seen in immunosuppressed patients without HIV infection, it has been reported in patients who have undergone renal or cardiac transplant, patients on long-term corticosteroid therapy, and those with leukemia or lymphoma. More than 90% of infections are caused by MAC; other potential pathogens include M. kansasii, M. chelonae, M. abscessus, and Mycobacterium haemophilum. Although seen less frequently since the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy, disseminated infection can develop progressively from an apparently indolent or localized infection or a respiratory or gastrointestinal source. Signs and symptoms of disseminated infection (specifically MAC-associated disease) are nonspecific and include fever, night sweats, weight loss, and abdominal tenderness. Disseminated MAC disease occurs primarily in patients with more advanced HIV disease (CD4+ count typically < 50 cells/μL). Clinically, disseminated MAC manifests as intermittent or persistent fever, constitutional symptoms with organomegaly and organ-specific abnormalities (eg, anemia, neutropenia from bone marrow involvement, adenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly), and elevations of liver enzymes or lung infiltrates from pulmonary involvement.

Continue to: What are the criteria for diagnosing NTM pulmonary disease?

What are the criteria for diagnosing NTM pulmonary disease?

The diagnosis of NTM disease is based on clinical, radiologic, and mycobacterial correlation with good communication between the experts in this field. The ATS/IDSA criteria for diagnosing NTM lung disease are shown in Figure 2. These criteria best apply to MAC, M. kansasii, and M. abscessus, but are also clinically applied to other NTM respiratory pathogens. The diagnosis of MAC infection is most readily established by culture of blood, bone marrow, respiratory secretions/fluid, or tissue specimens from suspected sites of involvement. Due to erratic shedding of MAC into the respiratory secretions in patients with nodular bronchiectasis, as compared to those with the cavitary form of the disease, sputum may be intermittently positive, with variable colony counts and polyclonal infections.¹² Prior to the advent of high-resolution CT, isolation of MAC organisms from the sputum of such patients was frequently dismissed as colonization.

Mycobacterial Testing

Because of the nonspecific symptoms and lack of diagnostic specificity of chest imaging, the diagnosis of NTM lung disease requires microbiologic confirmation. Specimens sent to the laboratory for identification of NTM must be handled with care to prevent contamination and false-positive results. Transport media and preservatives should be avoided, and transportation of the specimens should be prompt. These measures will prevent bacterial overgrowth. Furthermore, the yield of NTM may be affected if the patient has used antibiotics, such as macrolides and fluoroquinolones, prior to obtaining the specimen.

NTM should be identified at the species and subspecies level, although this is not practical in community practice settings. The preferred staining procedure in the laboratory is the fluorochrome method. Some species require special growth conditions and/or lower incubation temperatures, and other identification methods may have to be employed, such as DNA probes, polymerase chain reaction genotyping, nucleic acid sequence determination, and high-performance liquid chromatography. As a gold standard, clinical specimens for mycobacterial cultures should be inoculated onto 1 or more solid media (eg, Middlebrook 7H11 media and/or Lowenstein-Jensen media, the former of which is the preferred medium for NTM) and into a liquid medium (eg, BACTEC 12B broth or Mycobacteria growth indicator tube broth). Growth of visible colonies on solid media typically requires 2 to 4 weeks, but liquid media (eg, the radiometric BACTEC system), used as a supplementary and not as an exclusive test, usually produce results within 10 to 14 days. Furthermore, even after initial growth, identification of specific isolates based on the growth characteristics on solid media requires additional time. Use of specific nucleic acid probes for MAC and M. kansasii and HPLC testing of mycolic acid patterns in acid-fast bacilli smear–positive specimens can reduce the turnaround time of specific identification of a primary culture–positive sample. However, HPLC is not sufficient for definitive identification of many NTM species, including the RGM. Other newer techniques, including 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing and polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis, also allow NTM to be identified and speciated more reliably and rapidly from clinical specimens.

Cost and other practical considerations limit widespread adoption of these techniques. However, the recognition that M. abscessus can be separated into more than 1 subspecies, and that there are important prognostic implications of that separation, lends urgency to the broader adoption of newer molecular techniques in the mycobacteriology laboratory. Susceptibility testing is based on the broth microdilution method; RGM usually grow within 7 days of subculture, and the laboratory time to culture is a helpful hint, although not necessarily specific. Recognizing the morphology of mycobacterial colony growth may also be helpful in identification.

Are skin tests helpful in diagnosing NTM infection?

Tuberculin skin testing remains a nonspecific marker of mycobacterial infection and does not help in further elucidating NTM infection. However, epidemiologic and laboratory studies with well-characterized antigens have shown that dual skin testing with tuberculosis- versus NTM-derived tuberculin can discriminate between prior NTM and prior tuberculosis disease. Species-specific skin test antigens are not commercially available and are not helpful in the diagnosis of NTM disease because of cross-reactivity of M. tuberculosis and some NTM. However, increased prevalence of NTM sensitization based on purified protein derivative testing has been noted in a recent survey, which is consistent with an observed increase in the rates of NTM infections, specifically MAC, in the United States.^26,27

Interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) are now being used as an alternative to tuberculin skin testing to diagnose M. tuberculosis infection. Certain NTM species also contain gene sequences that encode for ESAT-6 or CFP-10 antigens used in the IGRAs, and hence, yield a positive IGRA test. These include M. marinum, M. szulgai, and M. kansasii.^28,29 However, MAC organisms do not produce positive results on assays that use these antigens.

Continue to: What is the approach to management of NTM pulmonary disease?

What is the approach to management of NTM pulmonary disease?

The correlation of symptoms with radiographic and microbiologic evidence is essential to categorize the disease and determine the need for therapy. Making the diagnosis of NTM lung disease does not necessitate the institution of therapy. The decision to treat should be weighed against potential risks and benefits to the individual patient based on symptomatic, radiographic, and microbiologic criteria, as well as underlying systemic or pulmonary immune status. In the absence of evidence of clinical, radiologic, or mycobacterial progression of disease, pursuing airway clearance therapy and clinical surveillance without initiating specific anti-MAC therapy is a reasonable option.¹¹ Identifying the sustained presence of NTM infection, especially MAC, in a patient with underlying clinical and radiographic evidence of bronchiectasis is of value in determining comprehensive treatment and management strategies. Close observation is indicated if the decision not to treat is made. If treatment is initiated, comprehensive management includes long-term follow-up with periodic bacteriologic surveillance, watching for drug toxicity and drug-drug interactions, ensuring adherence and compliance to treatment, and managing comorbidity.

The Bronchiectasis Severity Index is a useful clinical predictive tool that identifies patients at risk of future mortality, hospitalization, and exacerbations and can be used to evaluate the need for specific treatment.30 The index is based on dyspnea score, lung function tests, colonization of pathogens, and extent of disease.

Case 1 Continued

After approximately 2 months of observation and symptomatic treatment, without specific antibiotic therapy, the patient’s symptoms continue. She now develops intermittent hemoptysis. Repeat sputum studies reveal moderate growth of M. avium. A follow-up CT scan shows progression of disease, with an increase in the tree-in-bud pattern (Figure 3).

What treatment protocols are recommended for MAC pulmonary disease?

As per the ATS/IDSA statement, macrolides are the mainstay of treatment for pulmonary MAC disease.¹¹ Macrolides achieve an increased concentration in the lung, and when used for treatment of pulmonary MAC disease, there is a strong correlation between in vitro susceptibility, in vivo (clinical) response, and the immunomodulating effects of macrolides.^31,32 Macrolide-containing regimens have demonstrated efficacy in patients with MAC pulmonary disease^33,34; however, macrolide monotherapy should be avoided to prevent the development of resistance.

At the outset, it is critical to establish the objective criteria for determining response and to ensure that the patient understands the goals of the treatment and expectations of the treatment plan. Moreover, experts suggest that due to the possibility of drug intolerance, side effects, and the need for prolonged therapy, a “step ladder” ramping up approach to treatment could be adopted, with gradual introduction of therapy within a short time period; this approach may improve compliance and adherence to treatment.¹¹ If this approach is used, the doses may have to be divided. Patients who are unable to tolerate daily medications, even with dosage adjustment, should be tried on an intermittent treatment regimen. Older female patients frequently require gradual introduction of medications (ie, 1 medication added to the regimen every 1 to 2 weeks) to evaluate tolerance to each medication and medication dose.¹¹ Commonly encountered adverse effects of NTM treatment include intolerance to clarithromycin due to gastrointestinal problems, low body mass index, or age older than 70 years.

After determining that the patient requires therapy, the standard recommended treatment for MAC pulmonary disease includes the following: for most patients with nodular/bronchiectasis disease, a thrice-weekly regimen of clarithromycin (1000 mg) or azithromycin (500 mg), rifampin (600 mg), and ethambutol (25 mg/kg) is recommended. For patients with cavitary MAC pulmonary disease or severe nodular/bronchiectasis disease, the guidelines recommend a daily regimen of clarithromycin (500-1000 mg) or azithromycin (250 mg), rifampin (600 mg) or rifabutin (150–300 mg), and ethambutol (15 mg/kg), with consideration of intravenous (IV) amikacin 3 times/week early in therapy (Table 2).¹¹

The treatment of MAC hypersensitivity-like disease speaks to the controversy of whether this is an inflammatory process, infectious process, or a combination of inflammation and infection. Avoidance of exposure is the mainstay of management. In some cases, steroids are used with or without a short course of anti-MAC therapy (ie, clarithromycin or azithromycin with rifampin and ethambutol).

Prophylaxis for disseminated MAC disease should be given to adults with HIV infection who have a CD4+ count less than 50 cells/μL. Azithromycin 1200 mg/week or clarithromycin 1000 mg/day has proven efficacy, and rifabutin 300 mg/day is also effective but less well tolerated. Rifabutin is more active in vitro against MAC than rifampin, and is used in HIV-positive patients because of drug-drug interaction between antiretroviral drugs and rifampin.

Continue to: Case 1 Continued

Case 1 Continued

The patient is treated with clarithromycin, rifampin, and ethambutol for 1 year, with sputum conversion after 9 months. In the latter part of her treatment, she experiences decreased visual acuity. Treatment is discontinued prematurely after 1 year due to drug toxicity and continued intolerance to drug therapy. The patient remains asymptomatic for 8 months, and then begins to experience mild to moderate hemoptysis, with increasing cough and sputum production associated with postural changes during exercise. Physical examination overall remains unchanged. Three sputum results reveal heavy growth of MAC, and a CT scan of the chest shows a cavitary lesion in the left upper lobe along with the nodular bronchiectasis (Figure 4).

What are the management options at this stage?

Based on this patient’s continued symptoms, progression of radiologic abnormalities, and current culture growth, she requires re-treatment. With the adverse effects associated with ethambutol during the first round of therapy, the drug regimen needs to be modified. Several considerations are relevant at this stage. Relapse rates range from 20% to 30% after treatment with a macrolide-based therapy.^11,34 Obtaining a culture-sensitivity profile is imperative in these cases. Of note, treatment should not be discontinued altogether, but instead the toxic agent should be removed from the treatment regimen. Continuing treatment with a 2-drug regimen of clarithromycin and rifampin may be considered in this patient. Re-infection with multiple genotypes may also occur after successful drug therapy, but this is primarily seen in MAC patients with nodular bronchiectasis.^34,35 Patients in whom previous therapy has failed, even those with macrolide-susceptible MAC isolates, are less likely to respond to subsequent therapy. Data suggest that intermittent medication dosing is not effective for patients with severe or cavitary disease or in those in whom previous therapy has failed.³⁶ In this case, treatment should include a daily 3-drug therapy, with an injectable thrice-weekly aminoglycoside. Other agents such as linezolid and clofazimine may have to be tried. Cycloserine, ethionamide, and other agents are sometimes used, but their efficacy is unproven and doubtful. Pyrazinamide and isoniazid have no activity against MAC.

Treatment Failure and Drug Resistance

Treatment failure is considered to have occurred if patients have not had a response (microbiologic, clinical, or radiographic) after 6 months of appropriate therapy or had not achieved conversion of sputum to culture-negative after 12 months of appropriate therapy.¹¹ This occurs in about 40% of patients. Multiple factors can interfere with the successful treatment of MAC pulmonary disease, including medication nonadherence, medication side effects or intolerance, lack of response to a medication regimen, or the emergence of a macrolide-resistant or multidrug-resistant strain. Inducible macrolide resistance remains a potential factor.^34-36 A number of characteristics of NTM contribute to the poor response to currently used antibiotics: the organisms have a lipid outer membrane and prefer to adhere to surfaces and form biofilms, which makes them relatively impermeable to antibiotics.³⁷ Also, NTM replicate in phagocytic cells, allowing them to subvert normal cellular defense mechanisms. Furthermore, NTM can display colony variants, whereby single colony isolates switch between antibiotic-susceptible and -resistant variants. These factors have also impeded in development of new antibiotics for NTM infection.³⁷

Recent limited approval of amikacin liposomal inhalation suspension (ALIS) for treatment failure and refractory MAC infection in combination with guideline-based antimicrobial therapy (GBT) is a promising addition to the available treatment armamentarium. In a multinational trial, the addition of ALIS to GBT for treatment-refractory MAC lung disease achieved significantly greater culture conversion rates by month 6 than GBT alone, with comparable rates of serious adverse events.³⁸

Is therapeutic drug monitoring recommended during treatment of MAC pulmonary disease?

Treatment failure may also be drug-related, including poor drug penetration into the damaged lung tissue or drug-drug interactions leading to suboptimal drug levels. Peak serum concentrations have been found to be below target ranges in approximately 50% of patients using a macrolide and ethambutol. Concurrent use of rifampin decreases the peak serum concentration of macrolides and quinolones, with acceptable target levels seen in only 18% to 57% of cases. Whether this alters patient outcomes is not clear.^39-42 Factors identified as contributing to the poor response to therapy include poor compliance, cavitary disease, previous treatment for MAC pulmonary disease, and a history of chronic obstructive lung disease. Studies by Koh and colleagues⁴⁰ and van Ingen and colleagues⁴¹ with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics data showed that, in patients on MAC treatment with both clarithromycin and rifampicin, plasma levels of clarithromycin were lower than the recommended minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) against MAC for that drug. The studies also showed that rifampicin lowered clarithromycin concentrations more than did rifabutin, with the AUC/MIC ratio being suboptimal in nearly half the cases. However, low plasma clarithromycin concentrations did not have any correlation with treatment outcomes, as the peak plasma drug concentrations and the peak plasma drug concentration/MIC ratios did not differ between patients with unfavorable treatment outcomes and those with favorable outcomes. This is further compounded by the fact that macrolides achieve higher levels in lung tissue than in plasma, and hence the significance of low plasma levels is unclear; however, it is postulated that achieving higher drug levels could, in fact, lead to better clinical outcomes. Pending specific well-designed, prospective randomized controlled trials, routine therapeutic drug monitoring is not currently recommended, although some referral centers do this as their practice pattern.

Is surgery an option in this case?

The overall 5-year mortality for MAC pulmonary disease was approximately 28% in a retrospective analysis, with patients with cavitary disease at increased risk for death at 5 years.⁴² As such, surgery is an option in selected cases as part of adjunctive therapy along with anti-MAC therapy based on mycobacterial sensitivity. Surgery is used as either a curative approach or a “debulking” measure.¹¹ When present, clearly localized disease, especially in the upper lobe, lends itself best to surgical intervention. Surgical resection of a solitary pulmonary nodule due to MAC, in addition to concomitant medical treatment, is recommended. Surgical intervention should be considered early in the course of the disease because it may provide a cure without prolonged treatment and its associated problems, and this approach may lead to early sputum conversion. Surgery should also be considered in patients with macrolide-resistant or multidrug-resistant MAC infection or in those who cannot tolerate the side effects of therapy, provided that the disease is focal and limited. Patients with poor preoperative lung function have poorer outcomes than those with good lung function, and postoperative complications arising from treatment, especially with a right-sided pneumonectomy, tend to occur more frequently in these patients. Thoracic surgery for NTM pulmonary disease must be considered cautiously, as this is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and is best performed at specialized centers that have expertise and experience in this field.⁴³

Continue to: Mycobacterium abscessus Complex

Mycobacterium abscessus Complex

Case Patient 2

A 64-year-old man who is an ex-smoker presents with chronic cough, mild shortness of breath on exertion, low-grade fever, and unintentional weight loss of 10 lb. Physical exam is unremarkable. The patient was diagnosed with immunoglobulin deficiency (low IgM and low IgG4) in 2002, and has been on replacement therapy since then. He also has had multiple episodes of NTM infection, with MAC and M. kansasii infections diagnosed in 2012-2014, which required 18 months of multi-drug antibiotic treatment that resulted in sputum conversion. Pulmonary function testing done on this visit in 2017 shows mild obstructive impairment.

Chest radiograph and CT scan show bilateral bronchiectasis (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

The results of serial sputum microbiology testing performed over the course of 6 months are outlined below:

• 5/2017 (bronchoalveolar lavage): 2+; M. abscessus
• 9/2017 × 2: smear (–); group IV RGM
• 11/2017: smear (–); M. abscessus (> 50 CFU)
• 12/2017: smear (–); M. abscessus (> 50 CFU)

What are the clinical considerations in this patient with multiple NTM infections?

M. abscessus complex was originally described in soft tissue abscesses and skin infections possibly resulting from soil or water contamination. Subspeciation of M. abscessus complex during laboratory testing is critical to facilitate selection of a specific therapeutic approach; treatment decisions are impacted by the presence of an active erm gene and in vitro macrolide sensitivity, which differ between subspecies. The most acceptable classification outlines 3 species in the M. abscessus complex: Mycobacterium abscessus subsp abscessus, Mycobacterium abscessus subsp bolletii (both with an active erm gene responsible for macrolide resistance), and Mycobacterium abscessus subsp massiliense (with an inactive erm gene and therefore susceptible to macrolides).⁴⁴

RGM typically manifest in skin, soft tissue, and bone, and can cause soft tissue, surgical wound, and catheter-related infections. Although the role of RGM as pulmonary pathogens is unclear, underlying diseases associated with RGM include previously treated mycobacterial disease, coexistent pulmonary diseases with or without MAC, cystic fibrosis, malignancies, and gastroesophageal disorders. M. abscessus is the third most commonly identified respiratory NTM and accounts for the majority (80%) of RGM respiratory isolates. Other NTM reported to cause both lung disease and skin, bone, and joint infections include Mycobacterium simiae, Mycobacterium xenopi, and Mycobacterium malmoense. Ocular granulomatous diseases, such as chorioretinitis and keratitis, have been reported with both RGM and Runyon group III SGM, such as MAC or M. szulgai, following trauma or refractive surgery. These can mimic fungal, herpetic, or amebic keratitis. The pulmonary syndromes associated with multiple culture positivity are seen in elderly women with bronchiectasis or cavitary lung disease and/or associated with gastrointestinal symptoms of acid reflux, with or without achalasia and concomitant lipoid interstitial pneumonia.⁴⁵

Generally, pulmonary disease progresses slowly, but lung disease attributed to RGM can result in respiratory failure. Thus, RGM should be recognized as a possible cause of chronic mycobacterial lung disease, especially in immunocompromised patients, and respiratory isolates should be assessed carefully. Identification and drug susceptibility testing are essential before initiation of treatment for RGM.

What is the approach to management of M. abscessus pulmonary disease in a patient without cystic fibrosis?

The management of M. abscessus pulmonary infection as a subset of RGM requires a considered step-wise approach. The criteria for diagnosis and threshold for starting treatment are the same as those used in the management of MAC pulmonary disease,¹¹ but the treatment of M. abscessus pulmonary infection is more complex and has lower rates of success and cure. Also, antibiotic treatment presents challenges related to rapid identification of the causative organism, nomenclature, resistance patterns, and tolerance of treatment and side effects. If a source such as catheter, access port, or any surgical site is identified, prompt removal and clearance of the infected site are strongly advised

In the absence of any controlled clinical trials, treatment of RGM is based on in vitro susceptibility testing and expert opinion. As in MAC pulmonary disease, macrolides are the mainstay of treatment, with an induction phase of intravenous antibiotics. Treatment may include a combination of injectable aminoglycosides, imipenem, or cefoxitin and oral drugs such as a macrolide (eg, clarithromycin, azithromycin), doxycycline, fluoroquinolones, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, or linezolid. While antibiotic treatment of M. abscessus pulmonary disease is based on in vitro sensitivity pattern to a greater degree than is treatment of MAC pulmonary disease, this approach has significant practical limitations and hence variable applicability. The final choice of antibiotics is best based on the extended susceptibility results, if available. The presence of an active erm gene on a prolonged growth specimen in M. abscessus subsp abscessus and M. abscessus subsp bolletii precludes the use of a macrolide. In such cases, amikacin, especially in an intravenous form, is the mainstay of treatment based on MIC. Recently, there has been a resurgence in interest in the use of clofazimine in combination with amikacin when treatment is not successful in patients with M. abscessus subsp abscessus or M. bolletii with an active erm gene.^45,46 When localized abscess formation is noted, surgery may be the best option, with emphasis on removal of implants and catheters if implicated in RGM infection.

Attention must also be given to confounding pulmonary and associated comorbidities. This includes management of bronchiectasis with appropriately aggressive airway clearance techniques; anti-reflux measures for prevention of micro-aspiration; and management of other comorbid pulmonary conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, and sarcoidosis, if applicable. These interventions play a critical role in clearing the M. abscessus infection, preventing progression of disease, and reducing morbidity. The role of immunomodulatory therapy needs to be considered on a regular, ongoing basis. Identification of genetic factors and correction of immune deficiencies may help in managing the infection.

Case Patient 2 Conclusion

The treatment regimen adopted in this case includes a 3-month course of daily intravenous amikacin and imipenem with oral azithromycin, followed by a continuation phase of azithromycin with clofazimine and linezolid. Airway clearance techniques such as Vest/Acapella/CPT are intensified and monthly intravenous immunoglobulin therapy is continued. The patient responds to treatment, with resolution of his clinical symptoms and reduction in the colony count of M. abscessus in the sputum.

Summary

NTM are ubiquitous in the environment, and NTM infection has variable manifestations, especially in patients with no recognizable immune impairments. Underlying comorbid conditions with bronchiectasis complicate its management. Treatment strategies must be individualized based on degree of involvement, associated comorbidities, immune deficiencies, goals of therapy, outcome-based risk-benefit ratio assessment, and patient engagement and expectations. In diffuse pulmonary disease, drug treatment remains difficult due to poor match of in vitro and in vivo culture sensitivity, side effects of medications, and high failure rates. When a localized resectable foci of infection is identified, especially in RGM disease, surgical treatment may be the best approach in selected patients, but it must be performed in centers with expertise and experience in this field. 

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), comorbid chronic cough is associated with more respiratory symptoms and health care utilization, decreased lung function, and increased inflammatory markers in blood, according to research published in CHEST.

The results indicate “that chronic cough in individuals with COPD is associated with a more severe disease phenotype, which could be helpful for stratifying management of COPD in the future,” wrote Eskild Landt, PhD, a research assistant at Zealand University Hospital in Køge, Denmark, and colleagues.

A study by published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice (2019;7[6]:1783-92.e8) indicated that in patients with asthma, chronic cough was associated with worse respiratory symptoms, more health care utilization, decreased lung function, and increased inflammatory markers in blood. Dr. Landt and colleagues hypothesized that patients with COPD and chronic cough had a similar pattern of disease severity.

To test their hypothesis, they identified individuals with COPD and chronic cough among 43,271 participants in the Copenhagen General Population Study, a population-based cohort study. The researchers defined COPD as a ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) to forced vital capacity (FVC) of less than 0.70 in individuals without asthma. Consecutive individuals answered questions about chronic cough, which was defined as a cough lasting more than 8 weeks, and responded to the Leicester Cough Questionnaire. They also underwent a physical health examination, including prebronchodilatory spirometry, and gave blood for biochemical analyses. The blood was analyzed for high-sensitive C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, leukocytes, eosinophils, neutrophils, and immunoglobulin E (i.e., inflammatory biomarkers).

Dr. Landt and colleagues identified 8,181 patients (19% of the population) with COPD, 796 (10%) of whom had chronic cough. Of the 33,364 participants without COPD, 1,585 (5%) had chronic cough. For patients with COPD and chronic cough, median total Leicester Cough Questionnaire score was 17.7, corresponding to 5.9 for the physical domain, 5.6 for the psychological domain, and 6.3 for the social domain.

Among participants with COPD, those with chronic cough had higher rates of sputum production (60% versus 8%), wheezing (46% versus 14%), dyspnea (66% versus 38%), chest pain or tightness (9% versus 4%), nighttime dyspnea (8% versus 3%), episodes of acute bronchitis or pneumonias in the past 10 years (45% versus 25%), and general practitioner visits in the past 12 months (53% versus 37%). In addition, these participants had lower FEV₁% of predicted (81% versus 89%), lower ratio of FEV₁ to FVC (0.64 versus 0.66), and higher levels of high-sensitive C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, leukocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, and immunoglobulin E in blood.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting Leicester Cough Questionnaire score for randomly selected individuals with COPD from a general population setting,” wrote Dr. Landt and colleagues. The study’s strengths include its randomly chosen population-based sample and investigator blinding to disease status and clinical outcome, they added. Some patients with the most severe types of COPD and chronic cough may not have attended the physical examination and participated in the study, however, and this factor could have biased the results. Furthermore, nearly the entire sample was white, so the results may not be generalizable to other ethnicities. “That said, we are not aware of results to suggest that our findings should not be relevant to individuals of all races,” wrote the investigators.

The study was funded by the private Lundbeck Foundation, as well as by the Danish Lung Association and the Danish Cancer Society. Several authors reported receiving grants and fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis that were unrelated to the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Landt E et al. CHEST. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.038.

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), comorbid chronic cough is associated with more respiratory symptoms and health care utilization, decreased lung function, and increased inflammatory markers in blood, according to research published in CHEST.

The results indicate “that chronic cough in individuals with COPD is associated with a more severe disease phenotype, which could be helpful for stratifying management of COPD in the future,” wrote Eskild Landt, PhD, a research assistant at Zealand University Hospital in Køge, Denmark, and colleagues.

A study by published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice (2019;7[6]:1783-92.e8) indicated that in patients with asthma, chronic cough was associated with worse respiratory symptoms, more health care utilization, decreased lung function, and increased inflammatory markers in blood. Dr. Landt and colleagues hypothesized that patients with COPD and chronic cough had a similar pattern of disease severity.

To test their hypothesis, they identified individuals with COPD and chronic cough among 43,271 participants in the Copenhagen General Population Study, a population-based cohort study. The researchers defined COPD as a ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) to forced vital capacity (FVC) of less than 0.70 in individuals without asthma. Consecutive individuals answered questions about chronic cough, which was defined as a cough lasting more than 8 weeks, and responded to the Leicester Cough Questionnaire. They also underwent a physical health examination, including prebronchodilatory spirometry, and gave blood for biochemical analyses. The blood was analyzed for high-sensitive C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, leukocytes, eosinophils, neutrophils, and immunoglobulin E (i.e., inflammatory biomarkers).

Dr. Landt and colleagues identified 8,181 patients (19% of the population) with COPD, 796 (10%) of whom had chronic cough. Of the 33,364 participants without COPD, 1,585 (5%) had chronic cough. For patients with COPD and chronic cough, median total Leicester Cough Questionnaire score was 17.7, corresponding to 5.9 for the physical domain, 5.6 for the psychological domain, and 6.3 for the social domain.

Among participants with COPD, those with chronic cough had higher rates of sputum production (60% versus 8%), wheezing (46% versus 14%), dyspnea (66% versus 38%), chest pain or tightness (9% versus 4%), nighttime dyspnea (8% versus 3%), episodes of acute bronchitis or pneumonias in the past 10 years (45% versus 25%), and general practitioner visits in the past 12 months (53% versus 37%). In addition, these participants had lower FEV₁% of predicted (81% versus 89%), lower ratio of FEV₁ to FVC (0.64 versus 0.66), and higher levels of high-sensitive C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, leukocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, and immunoglobulin E in blood.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting Leicester Cough Questionnaire score for randomly selected individuals with COPD from a general population setting,” wrote Dr. Landt and colleagues. The study’s strengths include its randomly chosen population-based sample and investigator blinding to disease status and clinical outcome, they added. Some patients with the most severe types of COPD and chronic cough may not have attended the physical examination and participated in the study, however, and this factor could have biased the results. Furthermore, nearly the entire sample was white, so the results may not be generalizable to other ethnicities. “That said, we are not aware of results to suggest that our findings should not be relevant to individuals of all races,” wrote the investigators.

The study was funded by the private Lundbeck Foundation, as well as by the Danish Lung Association and the Danish Cancer Society. Several authors reported receiving grants and fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis that were unrelated to the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Landt E et al. CHEST. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.038.

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), comorbid chronic cough is associated with more respiratory symptoms and health care utilization, decreased lung function, and increased inflammatory markers in blood, according to research published in CHEST.

The results indicate “that chronic cough in individuals with COPD is associated with a more severe disease phenotype, which could be helpful for stratifying management of COPD in the future,” wrote Eskild Landt, PhD, a research assistant at Zealand University Hospital in Køge, Denmark, and colleagues.

A study by published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice (2019;7[6]:1783-92.e8) indicated that in patients with asthma, chronic cough was associated with worse respiratory symptoms, more health care utilization, decreased lung function, and increased inflammatory markers in blood. Dr. Landt and colleagues hypothesized that patients with COPD and chronic cough had a similar pattern of disease severity.

To test their hypothesis, they identified individuals with COPD and chronic cough among 43,271 participants in the Copenhagen General Population Study, a population-based cohort study. The researchers defined COPD as a ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) to forced vital capacity (FVC) of less than 0.70 in individuals without asthma. Consecutive individuals answered questions about chronic cough, which was defined as a cough lasting more than 8 weeks, and responded to the Leicester Cough Questionnaire. They also underwent a physical health examination, including prebronchodilatory spirometry, and gave blood for biochemical analyses. The blood was analyzed for high-sensitive C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, leukocytes, eosinophils, neutrophils, and immunoglobulin E (i.e., inflammatory biomarkers).

Dr. Landt and colleagues identified 8,181 patients (19% of the population) with COPD, 796 (10%) of whom had chronic cough. Of the 33,364 participants without COPD, 1,585 (5%) had chronic cough. For patients with COPD and chronic cough, median total Leicester Cough Questionnaire score was 17.7, corresponding to 5.9 for the physical domain, 5.6 for the psychological domain, and 6.3 for the social domain.

Among participants with COPD, those with chronic cough had higher rates of sputum production (60% versus 8%), wheezing (46% versus 14%), dyspnea (66% versus 38%), chest pain or tightness (9% versus 4%), nighttime dyspnea (8% versus 3%), episodes of acute bronchitis or pneumonias in the past 10 years (45% versus 25%), and general practitioner visits in the past 12 months (53% versus 37%). In addition, these participants had lower FEV₁% of predicted (81% versus 89%), lower ratio of FEV₁ to FVC (0.64 versus 0.66), and higher levels of high-sensitive C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, leukocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, and immunoglobulin E in blood.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting Leicester Cough Questionnaire score for randomly selected individuals with COPD from a general population setting,” wrote Dr. Landt and colleagues. The study’s strengths include its randomly chosen population-based sample and investigator blinding to disease status and clinical outcome, they added. Some patients with the most severe types of COPD and chronic cough may not have attended the physical examination and participated in the study, however, and this factor could have biased the results. Furthermore, nearly the entire sample was white, so the results may not be generalizable to other ethnicities. “That said, we are not aware of results to suggest that our findings should not be relevant to individuals of all races,” wrote the investigators.

The study was funded by the private Lundbeck Foundation, as well as by the Danish Lung Association and the Danish Cancer Society. Several authors reported receiving grants and fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis that were unrelated to the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Landt E et al. CHEST. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.038.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first and only adjuvanted, cell-based pandemic vaccine to provide active immunization against the influenza A virus H5N1 strain.
 

Influenza A (H5N1) monovalent vaccine, adjuvanted (Audenz, Seqirus) is for use in individuals aged 6 months and older.  It’s designed to be rapidly deployed to help protect the U.S. population and can be stockpiled for first responders in the event of a pandemic.

The vaccine and formulated prefilled syringes used in the vaccine are produced in a state-of-the-art production facility built and supported through a multiyear public-private partnership between Seqirus and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

“Pandemic influenza viruses can be deadly and spread rapidly, making production of safe, effective vaccines essential in saving lives,” BARDA Director Rick Bright, PhD, said in a company news release.

“With this licensure – the latest FDA-approved vaccine to prevent H5N1 influenza — we celebrate a decade-long partnership to achieve health security goals set by the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza and the 2019 Executive Order to speed the availability of influenza vaccine. Ultimately, this latest licensure means we can protect more people in an influenza pandemic,” said Bright.

“The approval of Audenz represents a key advance in influenza prevention and pandemic preparedness, combining leading-edge, cell-based manufacturing and adjuvant technologies,” Russell Basser, MD, chief scientist and senior vice president of research and development at Seqirus, said in the news release. “This pandemic influenza vaccine exemplifies our commitment to developing innovative technologies that can help provide rapid response during a pandemic emergency.”

Audenz had FDA fast track designation, a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first and only adjuvanted, cell-based pandemic vaccine to provide active immunization against the influenza A virus H5N1 strain.
 

Influenza A (H5N1) monovalent vaccine, adjuvanted (Audenz, Seqirus) is for use in individuals aged 6 months and older.  It’s designed to be rapidly deployed to help protect the U.S. population and can be stockpiled for first responders in the event of a pandemic.

The vaccine and formulated prefilled syringes used in the vaccine are produced in a state-of-the-art production facility built and supported through a multiyear public-private partnership between Seqirus and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

“Pandemic influenza viruses can be deadly and spread rapidly, making production of safe, effective vaccines essential in saving lives,” BARDA Director Rick Bright, PhD, said in a company news release.

“With this licensure – the latest FDA-approved vaccine to prevent H5N1 influenza — we celebrate a decade-long partnership to achieve health security goals set by the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza and the 2019 Executive Order to speed the availability of influenza vaccine. Ultimately, this latest licensure means we can protect more people in an influenza pandemic,” said Bright.

“The approval of Audenz represents a key advance in influenza prevention and pandemic preparedness, combining leading-edge, cell-based manufacturing and adjuvant technologies,” Russell Basser, MD, chief scientist and senior vice president of research and development at Seqirus, said in the news release. “This pandemic influenza vaccine exemplifies our commitment to developing innovative technologies that can help provide rapid response during a pandemic emergency.”

Audenz had FDA fast track designation, a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first and only adjuvanted, cell-based pandemic vaccine to provide active immunization against the influenza A virus H5N1 strain.
 

Influenza A (H5N1) monovalent vaccine, adjuvanted (Audenz, Seqirus) is for use in individuals aged 6 months and older.  It’s designed to be rapidly deployed to help protect the U.S. population and can be stockpiled for first responders in the event of a pandemic.

The vaccine and formulated prefilled syringes used in the vaccine are produced in a state-of-the-art production facility built and supported through a multiyear public-private partnership between Seqirus and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

“Pandemic influenza viruses can be deadly and spread rapidly, making production of safe, effective vaccines essential in saving lives,” BARDA Director Rick Bright, PhD, said in a company news release.

“With this licensure – the latest FDA-approved vaccine to prevent H5N1 influenza — we celebrate a decade-long partnership to achieve health security goals set by the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza and the 2019 Executive Order to speed the availability of influenza vaccine. Ultimately, this latest licensure means we can protect more people in an influenza pandemic,” said Bright.

“The approval of Audenz represents a key advance in influenza prevention and pandemic preparedness, combining leading-edge, cell-based manufacturing and adjuvant technologies,” Russell Basser, MD, chief scientist and senior vice president of research and development at Seqirus, said in the news release. “This pandemic influenza vaccine exemplifies our commitment to developing innovative technologies that can help provide rapid response during a pandemic emergency.”

Audenz had FDA fast track designation, a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine. 

An additional 5 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (2109-nCoV) have been confirmed in the United States, bringing the total number of confirmed cases to 11, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention press briefing.

Four of the new cases are in California, and one in Massachusetts. Although four of the new cases have recent travel history to Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the 2019-nCoV outbreak, the fifth is a close household contact of one of the other California patients, said Dr. Messonnier. This last case is the second instance of person-to-person spread of 2019-nCoV in the United States.

“We expect to find additional cases of the novel coronavirus in the United States,” she said. “We expect to see more cases of person-to-person spread among close contacts. And we continue to expect this will happen given the explosive nature of this outbreak in China.”

As of the morning of Feb. 3, 167 persons under investigation, or PUIs, for possible 2019-nCoV have tested negative for the virus, and an additional 82 PUIs have testing pending – this latter figure includes some tests that are still in transit to the CDC, said Dr. Messonnier.

During the briefing, Dr. Messonnier emphasized both the aggressive nature of the U.S. public health response and the rationale for quick and assertive action. “The goal of our public health response is to protect and contain,” she said. “Strong measures now may blunt the impact of this virus on the United States.”

She cited the intensity of transmission in Hubei Province, the expansion of transmission to other provinces in China, the expansion of cases outside of China, and sporadic ongoing deaths from 2019-nCoV as drivers of the aggressive U.S. public health response.

A presidential proclamation is currently in place that bars U.S. entry to foreign nationals who have visited mainland China within the past 14 days; the ban does not apply to travelers from Hong Kong and Macao. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and individuals who have U.S. permanent resident status are exempted from the entry ban and will be allowed entry into the United States.

However, explained Dr. Messonnier, those who have traveled to China recently and are permitted entry will be subject to screening. All passengers with such recent travel will be directed to one of 11 U.S. airports set up to perform additional screening.

As of Feb 3, the list of airports includes:

• San Francisco International Airport in California.
• Los Angeles International Airport in California.
• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia.
• Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Hawaii.
• O’Hare International Airport in Illinois.
• Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Michigan.
• Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.
• John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
• Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Texas.
• Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington.

Travelers who have been to Hubei Province in the previous 14 days will have an additional health assessment at which they will be screened for fever, cough, or difficulty breathing. Any American citizens or exempt individuals who are symptomatic would then be transferred for further medical evaluation. Asymptomatic travelers in this category will be subject to a mandatory 14-day quarantine near their point of entry, rather than continuing on to their final destinations.

Dr. Messonnier emphasized that the mandatory 14-day quarantine is specifically for Americans or exempt individuals returning from Hubei Province, adding that the CDC is presently working with individual states to determine the exact venues for quarantine.

American citizens and exempt individuals returning from other parts of mainland China will be routed to one of the 11 airports and will also receive additional health screening. Symptomatic individuals in this travel category would be referred for further evaluation before being able to complete their itinerary.

Asymptomatic American citizens and exempt individuals who are returning from mainland China – but not Hubei Province – will be allowed to travel on to their final destinations, but will be asked to stay home as much as possible and to monitor their health during the 14 days after their return.

The U.S. Department of State is bringing back more Americans from Wuhan province this week, and these individuals will also be kept under federal quarantine for 14 days.

“There are likely to be confirmed infections among returning travelers,” said Dr. Messonnier. “It is important to note that this strategy is not meant to catch every single traveler returning from China with novel coronavirus; given the nature of this virus and how it’s spreading, that would be impossible, but working together we can catch the majority of them.

“The goal here is to slow the entry of this virus into the United States,” she said, adding that the nation’s health care and public health systems stand on high alert to detect the virus in community settings. In response to questioning from the press, Dr. Messonnier defended the stringent quarantine measures, noting that they are in line with those taken by some other nations, and with the aggressive action being taken by the Chinese government itself. “These actions are science based and aimed at protecting the health of all Americans,” she said.

The real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay that the CDC has developed detects 2019-nCoV in both respiratory and serum specimens. Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is today filing an emergency use authorization (EUA) application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expedite access to the assay for public health laboratories across the country. “This will greatly enhance our capacity to test for this virus,” she said, noting that EUA approval may come as soon as the end of this week.

Although the CDC is poised to send an expert team to China, it’s still awaiting favorable results from the international negotiations currently underway. “This is a horrible situation in China,” said Dr. Messonnier. “Our presence on the ground in China would be a help to China. ... Science should trump everything else; that’s what we’re hoping – that the scientific expertise of the global community can be brought to bear on the incredibly complicated, difficult situation that our colleagues in China are dealing with.”

[email protected]

An additional 5 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (2109-nCoV) have been confirmed in the United States, bringing the total number of confirmed cases to 11, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention press briefing.

Four of the new cases are in California, and one in Massachusetts. Although four of the new cases have recent travel history to Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the 2019-nCoV outbreak, the fifth is a close household contact of one of the other California patients, said Dr. Messonnier. This last case is the second instance of person-to-person spread of 2019-nCoV in the United States.

“We expect to find additional cases of the novel coronavirus in the United States,” she said. “We expect to see more cases of person-to-person spread among close contacts. And we continue to expect this will happen given the explosive nature of this outbreak in China.”

As of the morning of Feb. 3, 167 persons under investigation, or PUIs, for possible 2019-nCoV have tested negative for the virus, and an additional 82 PUIs have testing pending – this latter figure includes some tests that are still in transit to the CDC, said Dr. Messonnier.

During the briefing, Dr. Messonnier emphasized both the aggressive nature of the U.S. public health response and the rationale for quick and assertive action. “The goal of our public health response is to protect and contain,” she said. “Strong measures now may blunt the impact of this virus on the United States.”

She cited the intensity of transmission in Hubei Province, the expansion of transmission to other provinces in China, the expansion of cases outside of China, and sporadic ongoing deaths from 2019-nCoV as drivers of the aggressive U.S. public health response.

A presidential proclamation is currently in place that bars U.S. entry to foreign nationals who have visited mainland China within the past 14 days; the ban does not apply to travelers from Hong Kong and Macao. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and individuals who have U.S. permanent resident status are exempted from the entry ban and will be allowed entry into the United States.

However, explained Dr. Messonnier, those who have traveled to China recently and are permitted entry will be subject to screening. All passengers with such recent travel will be directed to one of 11 U.S. airports set up to perform additional screening.

As of Feb 3, the list of airports includes:

• San Francisco International Airport in California.
• Los Angeles International Airport in California.
• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia.
• Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Hawaii.
• O’Hare International Airport in Illinois.
• Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Michigan.
• Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.
• John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
• Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Texas.
• Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington.

Travelers who have been to Hubei Province in the previous 14 days will have an additional health assessment at which they will be screened for fever, cough, or difficulty breathing. Any American citizens or exempt individuals who are symptomatic would then be transferred for further medical evaluation. Asymptomatic travelers in this category will be subject to a mandatory 14-day quarantine near their point of entry, rather than continuing on to their final destinations.

Dr. Messonnier emphasized that the mandatory 14-day quarantine is specifically for Americans or exempt individuals returning from Hubei Province, adding that the CDC is presently working with individual states to determine the exact venues for quarantine.

American citizens and exempt individuals returning from other parts of mainland China will be routed to one of the 11 airports and will also receive additional health screening. Symptomatic individuals in this travel category would be referred for further evaluation before being able to complete their itinerary.

Asymptomatic American citizens and exempt individuals who are returning from mainland China – but not Hubei Province – will be allowed to travel on to their final destinations, but will be asked to stay home as much as possible and to monitor their health during the 14 days after their return.

The U.S. Department of State is bringing back more Americans from Wuhan province this week, and these individuals will also be kept under federal quarantine for 14 days.

“There are likely to be confirmed infections among returning travelers,” said Dr. Messonnier. “It is important to note that this strategy is not meant to catch every single traveler returning from China with novel coronavirus; given the nature of this virus and how it’s spreading, that would be impossible, but working together we can catch the majority of them.

“The goal here is to slow the entry of this virus into the United States,” she said, adding that the nation’s health care and public health systems stand on high alert to detect the virus in community settings. In response to questioning from the press, Dr. Messonnier defended the stringent quarantine measures, noting that they are in line with those taken by some other nations, and with the aggressive action being taken by the Chinese government itself. “These actions are science based and aimed at protecting the health of all Americans,” she said.

The real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay that the CDC has developed detects 2019-nCoV in both respiratory and serum specimens. Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is today filing an emergency use authorization (EUA) application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expedite access to the assay for public health laboratories across the country. “This will greatly enhance our capacity to test for this virus,” she said, noting that EUA approval may come as soon as the end of this week.

Although the CDC is poised to send an expert team to China, it’s still awaiting favorable results from the international negotiations currently underway. “This is a horrible situation in China,” said Dr. Messonnier. “Our presence on the ground in China would be a help to China. ... Science should trump everything else; that’s what we’re hoping – that the scientific expertise of the global community can be brought to bear on the incredibly complicated, difficult situation that our colleagues in China are dealing with.”

[email protected]

An additional 5 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (2109-nCoV) have been confirmed in the United States, bringing the total number of confirmed cases to 11, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention press briefing.

Four of the new cases are in California, and one in Massachusetts. Although four of the new cases have recent travel history to Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the 2019-nCoV outbreak, the fifth is a close household contact of one of the other California patients, said Dr. Messonnier. This last case is the second instance of person-to-person spread of 2019-nCoV in the United States.

“We expect to find additional cases of the novel coronavirus in the United States,” she said. “We expect to see more cases of person-to-person spread among close contacts. And we continue to expect this will happen given the explosive nature of this outbreak in China.”

As of the morning of Feb. 3, 167 persons under investigation, or PUIs, for possible 2019-nCoV have tested negative for the virus, and an additional 82 PUIs have testing pending – this latter figure includes some tests that are still in transit to the CDC, said Dr. Messonnier.

During the briefing, Dr. Messonnier emphasized both the aggressive nature of the U.S. public health response and the rationale for quick and assertive action. “The goal of our public health response is to protect and contain,” she said. “Strong measures now may blunt the impact of this virus on the United States.”

She cited the intensity of transmission in Hubei Province, the expansion of transmission to other provinces in China, the expansion of cases outside of China, and sporadic ongoing deaths from 2019-nCoV as drivers of the aggressive U.S. public health response.

A presidential proclamation is currently in place that bars U.S. entry to foreign nationals who have visited mainland China within the past 14 days; the ban does not apply to travelers from Hong Kong and Macao. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and individuals who have U.S. permanent resident status are exempted from the entry ban and will be allowed entry into the United States.

However, explained Dr. Messonnier, those who have traveled to China recently and are permitted entry will be subject to screening. All passengers with such recent travel will be directed to one of 11 U.S. airports set up to perform additional screening.

As of Feb 3, the list of airports includes:

• San Francisco International Airport in California.
• Los Angeles International Airport in California.
• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia.
• Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Hawaii.
• O’Hare International Airport in Illinois.
• Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Michigan.
• Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.
• John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
• Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Texas.
• Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington.

Travelers who have been to Hubei Province in the previous 14 days will have an additional health assessment at which they will be screened for fever, cough, or difficulty breathing. Any American citizens or exempt individuals who are symptomatic would then be transferred for further medical evaluation. Asymptomatic travelers in this category will be subject to a mandatory 14-day quarantine near their point of entry, rather than continuing on to their final destinations.

Dr. Messonnier emphasized that the mandatory 14-day quarantine is specifically for Americans or exempt individuals returning from Hubei Province, adding that the CDC is presently working with individual states to determine the exact venues for quarantine.

American citizens and exempt individuals returning from other parts of mainland China will be routed to one of the 11 airports and will also receive additional health screening. Symptomatic individuals in this travel category would be referred for further evaluation before being able to complete their itinerary.

Asymptomatic American citizens and exempt individuals who are returning from mainland China – but not Hubei Province – will be allowed to travel on to their final destinations, but will be asked to stay home as much as possible and to monitor their health during the 14 days after their return.

The U.S. Department of State is bringing back more Americans from Wuhan province this week, and these individuals will also be kept under federal quarantine for 14 days.

“There are likely to be confirmed infections among returning travelers,” said Dr. Messonnier. “It is important to note that this strategy is not meant to catch every single traveler returning from China with novel coronavirus; given the nature of this virus and how it’s spreading, that would be impossible, but working together we can catch the majority of them.

“The goal here is to slow the entry of this virus into the United States,” she said, adding that the nation’s health care and public health systems stand on high alert to detect the virus in community settings. In response to questioning from the press, Dr. Messonnier defended the stringent quarantine measures, noting that they are in line with those taken by some other nations, and with the aggressive action being taken by the Chinese government itself. “These actions are science based and aimed at protecting the health of all Americans,” she said.

The real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay that the CDC has developed detects 2019-nCoV in both respiratory and serum specimens. Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is today filing an emergency use authorization (EUA) application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expedite access to the assay for public health laboratories across the country. “This will greatly enhance our capacity to test for this virus,” she said, noting that EUA approval may come as soon as the end of this week.

Although the CDC is poised to send an expert team to China, it’s still awaiting favorable results from the international negotiations currently underway. “This is a horrible situation in China,” said Dr. Messonnier. “Our presence on the ground in China would be a help to China. ... Science should trump everything else; that’s what we’re hoping – that the scientific expertise of the global community can be brought to bear on the incredibly complicated, difficult situation that our colleagues in China are dealing with.”

[email protected]

After 2 weeks of declines at the beginning of the year, flu activity has now increased for 2 consecutive weeks, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, an estimated 5.7% of all outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness (ILI) for the week ending Jan. 25, which was up from 5.1% the previous week but still lower than the current seasonal high of 7.1% recorded during the week of Dec. 22-28, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

Another key indicator of influenza activity, the percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also remains high as it rose from 25.7% the week before to 27.7% for the week ending Jan. 25, the influenza division said. That is the highest rate of the 2019-2020 season so far, surpassing the 26.8% reached during Dec. 22-28.

Another new seasonal high involves the number of states, 33 plus Puerto Rico, at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale for the latest reporting week, topping the 32 jurisdictions from the last full week of December. Another eight states and the District of Columbia were in the “high” range with activity levels of 8 and 9, and no state with available data was lower than level 6, the CDC data show.

Going along with the recent 2-week increase in activity is a large increase in the number of ILI-related pediatric deaths, which rose from 39 on Jan. 11 to the current count of 68, the CDC said. At the same point last year, there had been 36 pediatric deaths.

Other indicators of ILI severity, however, “are not high at this point in the season,” the influenza division noted. “Overall, hospitalization rates remain similar to what has been seen at this time during recent seasons, but rates among children and young adults are higher at this time than in recent seasons.” Overall pneumonia and influenza mortality is also low, the CDC added.

[email protected]

After 2 weeks of declines at the beginning of the year, flu activity has now increased for 2 consecutive weeks, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, an estimated 5.7% of all outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness (ILI) for the week ending Jan. 25, which was up from 5.1% the previous week but still lower than the current seasonal high of 7.1% recorded during the week of Dec. 22-28, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

Another key indicator of influenza activity, the percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also remains high as it rose from 25.7% the week before to 27.7% for the week ending Jan. 25, the influenza division said. That is the highest rate of the 2019-2020 season so far, surpassing the 26.8% reached during Dec. 22-28.

Another new seasonal high involves the number of states, 33 plus Puerto Rico, at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale for the latest reporting week, topping the 32 jurisdictions from the last full week of December. Another eight states and the District of Columbia were in the “high” range with activity levels of 8 and 9, and no state with available data was lower than level 6, the CDC data show.

Going along with the recent 2-week increase in activity is a large increase in the number of ILI-related pediatric deaths, which rose from 39 on Jan. 11 to the current count of 68, the CDC said. At the same point last year, there had been 36 pediatric deaths.

Other indicators of ILI severity, however, “are not high at this point in the season,” the influenza division noted. “Overall, hospitalization rates remain similar to what has been seen at this time during recent seasons, but rates among children and young adults are higher at this time than in recent seasons.” Overall pneumonia and influenza mortality is also low, the CDC added.

[email protected]

After 2 weeks of declines at the beginning of the year, flu activity has now increased for 2 consecutive weeks, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, an estimated 5.7% of all outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness (ILI) for the week ending Jan. 25, which was up from 5.1% the previous week but still lower than the current seasonal high of 7.1% recorded during the week of Dec. 22-28, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

Another key indicator of influenza activity, the percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also remains high as it rose from 25.7% the week before to 27.7% for the week ending Jan. 25, the influenza division said. That is the highest rate of the 2019-2020 season so far, surpassing the 26.8% reached during Dec. 22-28.

Another new seasonal high involves the number of states, 33 plus Puerto Rico, at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale for the latest reporting week, topping the 32 jurisdictions from the last full week of December. Another eight states and the District of Columbia were in the “high” range with activity levels of 8 and 9, and no state with available data was lower than level 6, the CDC data show.

Going along with the recent 2-week increase in activity is a large increase in the number of ILI-related pediatric deaths, which rose from 39 on Jan. 11 to the current count of 68, the CDC said. At the same point last year, there had been 36 pediatric deaths.

Other indicators of ILI severity, however, “are not high at this point in the season,” the influenza division noted. “Overall, hospitalization rates remain similar to what has been seen at this time during recent seasons, but rates among children and young adults are higher at this time than in recent seasons.” Overall pneumonia and influenza mortality is also low, the CDC added.

[email protected]

Enrichment next-generation sequencing (NGS) provides a more cost-efficient and sensitive method for detecting and sequencing novel coronaviruses from wild bat populations, according to a study reported in mSphere, an open-access journal from the American Society for Microbiology.

Wikimedia Commons/Mickey Samuni-Blank

With the appearance of the new zoonotic Wuhan coronavirus, the importance of monitoring the likelihood of new virus risks in wildlife reservoirs has been heightened. Bats in particular have been found to be the most common reservoir of coronaviruses, including being a probable source or mixing vessel for two previous modern epidemic coronaviruses: SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome).

“We should be alert and vigilant with the knowledge that bat CoVs [coronaviruses] are likely to cause another disease outbreak, not only because of their prevalence but also because the high frequency of recombination between viruses may lead to the generation of viruses with changes in virulence,” according to Bei Li, MD, of the Wuhan (China) Institute of Virology, and colleagues.

“We previously provided serological evidence that [HKU8-related] CoV had jumped over from bats to camels and recombined with MERS-CoV, alerting other researchers that the CoV species could be dangerous. ... Genome-level comparison is needed to monitor the risk of alterations in species tropism and pathogenesis,” according to study authors. They performed a study to develop a more effective and cost efficient method for detecting and sequencing novel coronaviruses in the bat population.

The taxonomy of coronaviruses is particularly complex and may be too narrowly defined, given the high level of genetic plasticity found. There are four genera (Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, and Deltacoronavirus) consisting of 38 unique species in the CoV subfamily Orthocoronavirinae, and the number is increasing. Viral taxomists rely on the open reading frame 1b (ORF1b) gene for classification, but viruses in the same species may show great diversity in regions outside ORF1b, confounding the species designation. In particular, bat CoVs classed as the same species can differ significantly in terms of receptor usage or virus-host interaction, as observed in bat SARS-related CoVs, according to the researchers.

The researchers obtained RNA from previous bat CoV surveillance projects, which used bat rectal swabs. Libraries for NGS were constructed from total RNA and processed to generate RNA fragments larger than 300 nucleotides. Following first- and second-strand cDNA synthesis, double-stranded cDNA was purified and the library was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology.

Targeted CoV genome enrichment was achieved using 4,303 customized biotinylated 120-mer baits. These baits were designed from 90 representative CoV genomes, and in silico analysis determined that these baits should target the known CoV species tested. These baits were added and hybridized to the libraries. To capture virus-specific library fragments, streptavidin magnetic beads (which bind to biotin) were added to the hybridization reaction mixture. The beads were then washed to remove unbound DNA. The postcapture virus-specific library fragments were then amplified using a subsequent round of PCR.

The enrichment NGS were retrospectively complemented with unbiased NGS and/or additional Sanger sequencing to obtain full-length genomes. The study showed that enrichment NGS not only decreased the amount of data requiring analysis but produced full-length genome coverage in both laboratory and clinical samples.

Using this technology, the researchers “effectively reduced sequencing costs by increasing the sensitivity of detection. We discovered nine full genomes of bat CoVs in this study and revealed great genetic diversity for eight of them.” In addition, they noted that using standard targeted PCR, which is common practice for many surveillance studies, would not have discovered this diversity.

“We should be alert and vigilant with the knowledge that bat CoVs are likely to cause another disease outbreak, not only because of their prevalence but also because the high frequency of recombination between viruses may lead to the generation of viruses with changes in virulence,” according to the researchers.

“We have provided a cost-effective methodology for bat CoV surveillance. The high genetic diversity observed in our newly sequenced samples suggests further work is needed to characterize these bat CoVs prior to or in the early stages of spillover to humans,” the authors concluded.

This study was supported by the Chinese government. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

Viral genome data for new CoVs from this study are available in GenBank under accession numbers MN611517 to MN611525.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Li B et al. mSphere 2020 Jan 29;5:e00807-19.

Enrichment next-generation sequencing (NGS) provides a more cost-efficient and sensitive method for detecting and sequencing novel coronaviruses from wild bat populations, according to a study reported in mSphere, an open-access journal from the American Society for Microbiology.

Wikimedia Commons/Mickey Samuni-Blank

With the appearance of the new zoonotic Wuhan coronavirus, the importance of monitoring the likelihood of new virus risks in wildlife reservoirs has been heightened. Bats in particular have been found to be the most common reservoir of coronaviruses, including being a probable source or mixing vessel for two previous modern epidemic coronaviruses: SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome).

“We should be alert and vigilant with the knowledge that bat CoVs [coronaviruses] are likely to cause another disease outbreak, not only because of their prevalence but also because the high frequency of recombination between viruses may lead to the generation of viruses with changes in virulence,” according to Bei Li, MD, of the Wuhan (China) Institute of Virology, and colleagues.

“We previously provided serological evidence that [HKU8-related] CoV had jumped over from bats to camels and recombined with MERS-CoV, alerting other researchers that the CoV species could be dangerous. ... Genome-level comparison is needed to monitor the risk of alterations in species tropism and pathogenesis,” according to study authors. They performed a study to develop a more effective and cost efficient method for detecting and sequencing novel coronaviruses in the bat population.

The taxonomy of coronaviruses is particularly complex and may be too narrowly defined, given the high level of genetic plasticity found. There are four genera (Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, and Deltacoronavirus) consisting of 38 unique species in the CoV subfamily Orthocoronavirinae, and the number is increasing. Viral taxomists rely on the open reading frame 1b (ORF1b) gene for classification, but viruses in the same species may show great diversity in regions outside ORF1b, confounding the species designation. In particular, bat CoVs classed as the same species can differ significantly in terms of receptor usage or virus-host interaction, as observed in bat SARS-related CoVs, according to the researchers.

The researchers obtained RNA from previous bat CoV surveillance projects, which used bat rectal swabs. Libraries for NGS were constructed from total RNA and processed to generate RNA fragments larger than 300 nucleotides. Following first- and second-strand cDNA synthesis, double-stranded cDNA was purified and the library was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology.

Targeted CoV genome enrichment was achieved using 4,303 customized biotinylated 120-mer baits. These baits were designed from 90 representative CoV genomes, and in silico analysis determined that these baits should target the known CoV species tested. These baits were added and hybridized to the libraries. To capture virus-specific library fragments, streptavidin magnetic beads (which bind to biotin) were added to the hybridization reaction mixture. The beads were then washed to remove unbound DNA. The postcapture virus-specific library fragments were then amplified using a subsequent round of PCR.

The enrichment NGS were retrospectively complemented with unbiased NGS and/or additional Sanger sequencing to obtain full-length genomes. The study showed that enrichment NGS not only decreased the amount of data requiring analysis but produced full-length genome coverage in both laboratory and clinical samples.

Using this technology, the researchers “effectively reduced sequencing costs by increasing the sensitivity of detection. We discovered nine full genomes of bat CoVs in this study and revealed great genetic diversity for eight of them.” In addition, they noted that using standard targeted PCR, which is common practice for many surveillance studies, would not have discovered this diversity.

“We should be alert and vigilant with the knowledge that bat CoVs are likely to cause another disease outbreak, not only because of their prevalence but also because the high frequency of recombination between viruses may lead to the generation of viruses with changes in virulence,” according to the researchers.

“We have provided a cost-effective methodology for bat CoV surveillance. The high genetic diversity observed in our newly sequenced samples suggests further work is needed to characterize these bat CoVs prior to or in the early stages of spillover to humans,” the authors concluded.

This study was supported by the Chinese government. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

Viral genome data for new CoVs from this study are available in GenBank under accession numbers MN611517 to MN611525.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Li B et al. mSphere 2020 Jan 29;5:e00807-19.

Enrichment next-generation sequencing (NGS) provides a more cost-efficient and sensitive method for detecting and sequencing novel coronaviruses from wild bat populations, according to a study reported in mSphere, an open-access journal from the American Society for Microbiology.

Wikimedia Commons/Mickey Samuni-Blank

With the appearance of the new zoonotic Wuhan coronavirus, the importance of monitoring the likelihood of new virus risks in wildlife reservoirs has been heightened. Bats in particular have been found to be the most common reservoir of coronaviruses, including being a probable source or mixing vessel for two previous modern epidemic coronaviruses: SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome).

“We should be alert and vigilant with the knowledge that bat CoVs [coronaviruses] are likely to cause another disease outbreak, not only because of their prevalence but also because the high frequency of recombination between viruses may lead to the generation of viruses with changes in virulence,” according to Bei Li, MD, of the Wuhan (China) Institute of Virology, and colleagues.

“We previously provided serological evidence that [HKU8-related] CoV had jumped over from bats to camels and recombined with MERS-CoV, alerting other researchers that the CoV species could be dangerous. ... Genome-level comparison is needed to monitor the risk of alterations in species tropism and pathogenesis,” according to study authors. They performed a study to develop a more effective and cost efficient method for detecting and sequencing novel coronaviruses in the bat population.

The taxonomy of coronaviruses is particularly complex and may be too narrowly defined, given the high level of genetic plasticity found. There are four genera (Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, and Deltacoronavirus) consisting of 38 unique species in the CoV subfamily Orthocoronavirinae, and the number is increasing. Viral taxomists rely on the open reading frame 1b (ORF1b) gene for classification, but viruses in the same species may show great diversity in regions outside ORF1b, confounding the species designation. In particular, bat CoVs classed as the same species can differ significantly in terms of receptor usage or virus-host interaction, as observed in bat SARS-related CoVs, according to the researchers.

The researchers obtained RNA from previous bat CoV surveillance projects, which used bat rectal swabs. Libraries for NGS were constructed from total RNA and processed to generate RNA fragments larger than 300 nucleotides. Following first- and second-strand cDNA synthesis, double-stranded cDNA was purified and the library was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology.

Targeted CoV genome enrichment was achieved using 4,303 customized biotinylated 120-mer baits. These baits were designed from 90 representative CoV genomes, and in silico analysis determined that these baits should target the known CoV species tested. These baits were added and hybridized to the libraries. To capture virus-specific library fragments, streptavidin magnetic beads (which bind to biotin) were added to the hybridization reaction mixture. The beads were then washed to remove unbound DNA. The postcapture virus-specific library fragments were then amplified using a subsequent round of PCR.

The enrichment NGS were retrospectively complemented with unbiased NGS and/or additional Sanger sequencing to obtain full-length genomes. The study showed that enrichment NGS not only decreased the amount of data requiring analysis but produced full-length genome coverage in both laboratory and clinical samples.

Using this technology, the researchers “effectively reduced sequencing costs by increasing the sensitivity of detection. We discovered nine full genomes of bat CoVs in this study and revealed great genetic diversity for eight of them.” In addition, they noted that using standard targeted PCR, which is common practice for many surveillance studies, would not have discovered this diversity.

“We should be alert and vigilant with the knowledge that bat CoVs are likely to cause another disease outbreak, not only because of their prevalence but also because the high frequency of recombination between viruses may lead to the generation of viruses with changes in virulence,” according to the researchers.

“We have provided a cost-effective methodology for bat CoV surveillance. The high genetic diversity observed in our newly sequenced samples suggests further work is needed to characterize these bat CoVs prior to or in the early stages of spillover to humans,” the authors concluded.

This study was supported by the Chinese government. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

Viral genome data for new CoVs from this study are available in GenBank under accession numbers MN611517 to MN611525.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Li B et al. mSphere 2020 Jan 29;5:e00807-19.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first drug to combat peanut allergy in children, (Palforzia, Aimmune Therapeutics), although those who take it must continue to avoid peanuts in their diets.

The peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder is also the first drug ever approved to treat a food allergy. It is not a cure, but it mitigates allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, that may occur with accidental exposure to peanuts, the FDA said in a news release.

Treatment with the oral powder, which is mixed into semisolid food – such as applesauce or yogurt – can be started in children aged 4 through 17 years who have a confirmed peanut allergy and then continued as a maintenance medication. Some 1 million American children have peanut allergy, and only a fifth will outgrow the allergy, the agency said.

“Because there is no cure, allergic individuals must strictly avoid exposure to prevent severe and potentially life-threatening reactions,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the statement.

An FDA advisory panel backed the medication in September 2019, but some committee members expressed concern about the large number of children in clinical trials who required epinephrine after receiving a dose of Palforzia.

The initial dose phase is given on a single day, while updosing consists of 11 increasing doses over several months. If the patient tolerates the first administration of an increased dose level, they may continue that dose daily at home. Daily maintenance begins after the completion of all updosing levels.

The drug will carry a boxed warning on the risk of anaphylaxis with the drug, and the FDA is requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

Palforzia will be available only through specially certified health care providers, health care settings, and pharmacies to patients enrolled in the REMS program, the agency said. Also, the initial dose escalation and first dose of each updosing level can be given only in a certified setting.

The agency said that patients or parents or caregivers must be counseled on the need for constant availability of injectable epinephrine, the need for continued dietary peanut avoidance, and on how to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis.

‘Eagerly’ awaited

Palforzia’s effectiveness was based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving about 500 peanut-allergic individuals that found that 67.2% of allergic patients tolerated an oral challenge with a single 600-mg dose of peanut protein with no more than mild allergic symptoms after 6 months of maintenance treatment, compared with 4% of placebo recipients, the FDA said.

In two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies looking at safety, the most commonly reported side effects among about 700 individuals involved in the research were abdominal pain, vomiting, nausea, tingling in the mouth, itching (including in the mouth and ears), cough, runny nose, throat irritation and tightness, hives, wheezing and shortness of breath, and anaphylaxis.

Palforzia should not be given to those with uncontrolled asthma and can’t be used for emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

“The food allergy community has been eagerly awaiting an FDA-approved treatment that can help mitigate allergic reactions to peanut and, as allergists, we want nothing more than to have a treatment option to offer our patients that has demonstrated both the safety and efficacy to truly impact the lives of patients who live with peanut allergy,” said Christina Ciaccio, MD, chief of Allergy/Immunology and Pediatric Pulmonary Medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center and Biological Sciences, in a company statement from Aimmune. “With today’s approval of Palforzia, we can – for the first time – offer children and teens with peanut allergy a proven medicine that employs an established therapeutic approach.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first drug to combat peanut allergy in children, (Palforzia, Aimmune Therapeutics), although those who take it must continue to avoid peanuts in their diets.

The peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder is also the first drug ever approved to treat a food allergy. It is not a cure, but it mitigates allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, that may occur with accidental exposure to peanuts, the FDA said in a news release.

Treatment with the oral powder, which is mixed into semisolid food – such as applesauce or yogurt – can be started in children aged 4 through 17 years who have a confirmed peanut allergy and then continued as a maintenance medication. Some 1 million American children have peanut allergy, and only a fifth will outgrow the allergy, the agency said.

“Because there is no cure, allergic individuals must strictly avoid exposure to prevent severe and potentially life-threatening reactions,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the statement.

An FDA advisory panel backed the medication in September 2019, but some committee members expressed concern about the large number of children in clinical trials who required epinephrine after receiving a dose of Palforzia.

The initial dose phase is given on a single day, while updosing consists of 11 increasing doses over several months. If the patient tolerates the first administration of an increased dose level, they may continue that dose daily at home. Daily maintenance begins after the completion of all updosing levels.

The drug will carry a boxed warning on the risk of anaphylaxis with the drug, and the FDA is requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

Palforzia will be available only through specially certified health care providers, health care settings, and pharmacies to patients enrolled in the REMS program, the agency said. Also, the initial dose escalation and first dose of each updosing level can be given only in a certified setting.

The agency said that patients or parents or caregivers must be counseled on the need for constant availability of injectable epinephrine, the need for continued dietary peanut avoidance, and on how to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis.

‘Eagerly’ awaited

Palforzia’s effectiveness was based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving about 500 peanut-allergic individuals that found that 67.2% of allergic patients tolerated an oral challenge with a single 600-mg dose of peanut protein with no more than mild allergic symptoms after 6 months of maintenance treatment, compared with 4% of placebo recipients, the FDA said.

In two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies looking at safety, the most commonly reported side effects among about 700 individuals involved in the research were abdominal pain, vomiting, nausea, tingling in the mouth, itching (including in the mouth and ears), cough, runny nose, throat irritation and tightness, hives, wheezing and shortness of breath, and anaphylaxis.

Palforzia should not be given to those with uncontrolled asthma and can’t be used for emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

“The food allergy community has been eagerly awaiting an FDA-approved treatment that can help mitigate allergic reactions to peanut and, as allergists, we want nothing more than to have a treatment option to offer our patients that has demonstrated both the safety and efficacy to truly impact the lives of patients who live with peanut allergy,” said Christina Ciaccio, MD, chief of Allergy/Immunology and Pediatric Pulmonary Medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center and Biological Sciences, in a company statement from Aimmune. “With today’s approval of Palforzia, we can – for the first time – offer children and teens with peanut allergy a proven medicine that employs an established therapeutic approach.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first drug to combat peanut allergy in children, (Palforzia, Aimmune Therapeutics), although those who take it must continue to avoid peanuts in their diets.

The peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder is also the first drug ever approved to treat a food allergy. It is not a cure, but it mitigates allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, that may occur with accidental exposure to peanuts, the FDA said in a news release.

Treatment with the oral powder, which is mixed into semisolid food – such as applesauce or yogurt – can be started in children aged 4 through 17 years who have a confirmed peanut allergy and then continued as a maintenance medication. Some 1 million American children have peanut allergy, and only a fifth will outgrow the allergy, the agency said.

“Because there is no cure, allergic individuals must strictly avoid exposure to prevent severe and potentially life-threatening reactions,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the statement.

An FDA advisory panel backed the medication in September 2019, but some committee members expressed concern about the large number of children in clinical trials who required epinephrine after receiving a dose of Palforzia.

The initial dose phase is given on a single day, while updosing consists of 11 increasing doses over several months. If the patient tolerates the first administration of an increased dose level, they may continue that dose daily at home. Daily maintenance begins after the completion of all updosing levels.

The drug will carry a boxed warning on the risk of anaphylaxis with the drug, and the FDA is requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

Palforzia will be available only through specially certified health care providers, health care settings, and pharmacies to patients enrolled in the REMS program, the agency said. Also, the initial dose escalation and first dose of each updosing level can be given only in a certified setting.

The agency said that patients or parents or caregivers must be counseled on the need for constant availability of injectable epinephrine, the need for continued dietary peanut avoidance, and on how to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis.

‘Eagerly’ awaited

Palforzia’s effectiveness was based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving about 500 peanut-allergic individuals that found that 67.2% of allergic patients tolerated an oral challenge with a single 600-mg dose of peanut protein with no more than mild allergic symptoms after 6 months of maintenance treatment, compared with 4% of placebo recipients, the FDA said.

In two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies looking at safety, the most commonly reported side effects among about 700 individuals involved in the research were abdominal pain, vomiting, nausea, tingling in the mouth, itching (including in the mouth and ears), cough, runny nose, throat irritation and tightness, hives, wheezing and shortness of breath, and anaphylaxis.

Palforzia should not be given to those with uncontrolled asthma and can’t be used for emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

“The food allergy community has been eagerly awaiting an FDA-approved treatment that can help mitigate allergic reactions to peanut and, as allergists, we want nothing more than to have a treatment option to offer our patients that has demonstrated both the safety and efficacy to truly impact the lives of patients who live with peanut allergy,” said Christina Ciaccio, MD, chief of Allergy/Immunology and Pediatric Pulmonary Medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center and Biological Sciences, in a company statement from Aimmune. “With today’s approval of Palforzia, we can – for the first time – offer children and teens with peanut allergy a proven medicine that employs an established therapeutic approach.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government declared a formal public health emergency on Jan. 31 to aid in the response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The declaration, issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex. M. Azar II gives state, tribal, and local health departments additional flexibility to request assistance from the federal government in responding to the coronavirus.

"While this virus poses a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public remains low at this time, and we are working to keep this risk low."*

The government also began a quarantine of travelers. The 195 passengers who arrived at March Air Reserve Base in Ontario, Calif., from Wuhan, China on Jan. 29 are under federal quarantine amid growing concerns about the 2019-nCoV—the first such action taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in more than 50 years.

“This decision is based on the current scientific facts,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a press briefing Jan. 31. “While we understand the action seems drastic, our goal today, tomorrow, and always continues to be the safety of the American public. We would rather be remembered for over-reacting than under-reacting.”

These actions come on the heels of the World Health Organization’s Jan. 30 declaration of 2019-nCoV as a public health emergency of international concern, and from a recent spike in cases reported by Chinese health officials. “Every day this week China has reported additional cases,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Today’s numbers are a 26% increase since yesterday. Over the course of the last week, there have been nearly 7,000 new cases reported. This tells us the virus is continuing to spread rapidly in China. The reported deaths have continued to rise as well. In addition, locations outside China have continued to report cases. There have been an increasing number of reports of person-to-person spread, and now, most recently, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine of asymptomatic spread.”

The quarantine of passengers will last 14 days from when the plane left Wuhan, China. Martin Cetron, MD, who directs the CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, said that the quarantine order “offers the greatest level of protection for the American public in preventing introduction and spread. That is our primary concern. Prior epidemics suggest that when people are properly informed, they’re usually very compliant with this request to restrict their movement. This allows someone who would become symptomatic to be rapidly identified. Offering early, rapid diagnosis of their illness could alleviate a lot of anxiety and uncertainty. In addition, this is a protective effect on family members. No individual wants to be the source of introducing or exposing a family member or a loved one to their virus. Additionally, this is part of their civic responsibility to protect their communities.”

[email protected]

* This story was updated on 01/31/2020. 

The federal government declared a formal public health emergency on Jan. 31 to aid in the response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The declaration, issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex. M. Azar II gives state, tribal, and local health departments additional flexibility to request assistance from the federal government in responding to the coronavirus.

"While this virus poses a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public remains low at this time, and we are working to keep this risk low."*

The government also began a quarantine of travelers. The 195 passengers who arrived at March Air Reserve Base in Ontario, Calif., from Wuhan, China on Jan. 29 are under federal quarantine amid growing concerns about the 2019-nCoV—the first such action taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in more than 50 years.

“This decision is based on the current scientific facts,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a press briefing Jan. 31. “While we understand the action seems drastic, our goal today, tomorrow, and always continues to be the safety of the American public. We would rather be remembered for over-reacting than under-reacting.”

These actions come on the heels of the World Health Organization’s Jan. 30 declaration of 2019-nCoV as a public health emergency of international concern, and from a recent spike in cases reported by Chinese health officials. “Every day this week China has reported additional cases,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Today’s numbers are a 26% increase since yesterday. Over the course of the last week, there have been nearly 7,000 new cases reported. This tells us the virus is continuing to spread rapidly in China. The reported deaths have continued to rise as well. In addition, locations outside China have continued to report cases. There have been an increasing number of reports of person-to-person spread, and now, most recently, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine of asymptomatic spread.”

The quarantine of passengers will last 14 days from when the plane left Wuhan, China. Martin Cetron, MD, who directs the CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, said that the quarantine order “offers the greatest level of protection for the American public in preventing introduction and spread. That is our primary concern. Prior epidemics suggest that when people are properly informed, they’re usually very compliant with this request to restrict their movement. This allows someone who would become symptomatic to be rapidly identified. Offering early, rapid diagnosis of their illness could alleviate a lot of anxiety and uncertainty. In addition, this is a protective effect on family members. No individual wants to be the source of introducing or exposing a family member or a loved one to their virus. Additionally, this is part of their civic responsibility to protect their communities.”

[email protected]

* This story was updated on 01/31/2020. 

The federal government declared a formal public health emergency on Jan. 31 to aid in the response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The declaration, issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex. M. Azar II gives state, tribal, and local health departments additional flexibility to request assistance from the federal government in responding to the coronavirus.

"While this virus poses a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public remains low at this time, and we are working to keep this risk low."*

The government also began a quarantine of travelers. The 195 passengers who arrived at March Air Reserve Base in Ontario, Calif., from Wuhan, China on Jan. 29 are under federal quarantine amid growing concerns about the 2019-nCoV—the first such action taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in more than 50 years.

“This decision is based on the current scientific facts,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a press briefing Jan. 31. “While we understand the action seems drastic, our goal today, tomorrow, and always continues to be the safety of the American public. We would rather be remembered for over-reacting than under-reacting.”

These actions come on the heels of the World Health Organization’s Jan. 30 declaration of 2019-nCoV as a public health emergency of international concern, and from a recent spike in cases reported by Chinese health officials. “Every day this week China has reported additional cases,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Today’s numbers are a 26% increase since yesterday. Over the course of the last week, there have been nearly 7,000 new cases reported. This tells us the virus is continuing to spread rapidly in China. The reported deaths have continued to rise as well. In addition, locations outside China have continued to report cases. There have been an increasing number of reports of person-to-person spread, and now, most recently, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine of asymptomatic spread.”

The quarantine of passengers will last 14 days from when the plane left Wuhan, China. Martin Cetron, MD, who directs the CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, said that the quarantine order “offers the greatest level of protection for the American public in preventing introduction and spread. That is our primary concern. Prior epidemics suggest that when people are properly informed, they’re usually very compliant with this request to restrict their movement. This allows someone who would become symptomatic to be rapidly identified. Offering early, rapid diagnosis of their illness could alleviate a lot of anxiety and uncertainty. In addition, this is a protective effect on family members. No individual wants to be the source of introducing or exposing a family member or a loved one to their virus. Additionally, this is part of their civic responsibility to protect their communities.”

[email protected]

* This story was updated on 01/31/2020. 

A number of years ago, a patient I was treating mentioned that she was not eating tomatoes. There had been stories in the news about people contracting bacterial infections from tomatoes, but I paused for a moment, then asked her: “Have there been any contaminated tomatoes here in Maryland?” There had not been and I was still happily eating salsa, but my patient thought about this differently: If disease-causing tomatoes were to come to our state, someone would be the first person to become ill. She did not want to take any risks. My patient, however, was a heavy smoker and already grappling with health issues that were caused by smoking, so I found her choice of what she should worry about and how it influenced her behavior to be perplexing. I realize it’s not the same; nicotine is an addiction, while tomatoes remain a choice for most of us, and it’s common for people to worry about very unlikely events even when we are surrounded by very real and statistically more probable threats to our well-being.

Today’s news reports are filled with stories about 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), an illness that started in Wuhan, China; as of Jan. 31, 2020, there were 9,776 confirmed cases and 213 deaths. There have been an additional 118 cases reported outside of mainland China, including 6 in the United States, and no one outside of China has died.

The response to the virus has been remarkable: Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million inhabitants, is on lockdown, as are 15 other cities in China; 46 million people have been affected, the largest quarantine in human history. Travel is restricted in parts of China, airports all over the world are screening those who fly in from Wuhan, foreign governments are bringing their citizens home from Wuhan, and even Starbucks has temporarily closed half its stores in China. The economics of containing this virus are astounding.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that, as of the week of Jan. 25, there have been 19 million cases of the flu in the United States. Of those stricken, 180,000 people have been hospitalized and 10,000 have died, including 68 pediatric patients. No cities are on lockdown, public transportation runs as usual, airports don’t screen passengers for flu symptoms, and Starbucks continues to serve vanilla lattes to any willing customer. Anxiety about illness is not new; we’ve seen it with SARS, Ebola, measles, and even around Chipotle’s food poisoning cases – to name just a few recent scares. We have also seen a lot of media on vaping-related deaths, and as of early January 2020, vaping-related illnesses affected 2,602 people with 59 deaths. It has been a topic of discussion among legislators, with an emphasis on either outlawing the flavoring that might appeal to younger people or simply outlawing e-cigarettes. No one, however, is talking about outlawing regular cigarettes, despite the fact that many people have switched from cigarettes to vaping products as a way to quit smoking. So, while vaping has caused 59 deaths since 2018, cigarettes are responsible for 480,000 fatalities a year in the United States and smokers live, on average, 10 years less than nonsmokers.

So what fuels anxiety about the latest health scare, and why aren’t we more anxious about the more common causes of premature mortality? Certainly, the newness and the unknown are factors in the coronavirus scare. It’s not certain how this illness was introduced into the human population, although one theory is that it started with the consumption of bats who carry the virus. It’s spreading fast, and in some people, it has been lethal. The incubation period is not known, or whether it is contagious before symptoms appear. Coronavirus is getting a lot of public health attention and the World Health Organization just announced that the virus is a public health emergency of international concern. On the televised news on Jan. 29, 2020, coronavirus was the top story in the United States, even though an impeachment trial is in progress for our country’s president.

The public health response of locking down cities may help contain the outbreak and prevent a global epidemic, although millions of people had already left Wuhan, so the heavy-handed attempt to prevent spread of the virus may well be too late. In the case of the Ebola virus – a much more lethal disease that was also thought to be introduced by bats – public health measures certainly curtailed global spread, and the epidemic of 2014-2016 was limited to 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths, nearly all of them in West Africa.

Most of the things that cause people to die are not new and are not topics the media chooses to sensationalize. Dissemination of news has changed over the decades, with so much more of it, instant reports on social media, and competition for viewers that leads journalists to pull at our emotions. We might worry about getting food poisoning from romaine lettuce – if that is what the news is focusing on – but we don’t worry when we enter our cars, keep firearms in our homes, or light up cigarettes. And while we may, or may not, get flu shots and avoid those who have the flu, how and where we position both our anxiety and our resources does not always make sense. Certainly some people are predisposed to worry about both common and uncommon dangers, while others seem never to worry and engage in acts that many of us would consider dangerous. If we are looking for logic, it may be hard to find – there are those who would happily go bungee jumping but wouldn’t dream of leaving the house out without hand sanitizer.

The repercussions from this massive response to the Wuhan coronavirus are significant. For the millions of people on lockdown in China, each day gets emotionally harder; some may begin to have issues procuring food, and the financial losses for the economy will be significant. It’s not really possible to know yet if this response is warranted; we do know that infectious diseases can kill millions. The AIDS pandemic has taken the lives of 36 million people since 1981, and the influenza pandemic of 1918 resulted in an estimated 20 million to 50 million deaths after infecting 500 million people. Still, one might wonder if other, more mundane causes of morbidity and mortality – the ones that no longer garner our dread or make it to the front pages – might also be worthy of more hype and resources.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

A number of years ago, a patient I was treating mentioned that she was not eating tomatoes. There had been stories in the news about people contracting bacterial infections from tomatoes, but I paused for a moment, then asked her: “Have there been any contaminated tomatoes here in Maryland?” There had not been and I was still happily eating salsa, but my patient thought about this differently: If disease-causing tomatoes were to come to our state, someone would be the first person to become ill. She did not want to take any risks. My patient, however, was a heavy smoker and already grappling with health issues that were caused by smoking, so I found her choice of what she should worry about and how it influenced her behavior to be perplexing. I realize it’s not the same; nicotine is an addiction, while tomatoes remain a choice for most of us, and it’s common for people to worry about very unlikely events even when we are surrounded by very real and statistically more probable threats to our well-being.

Today’s news reports are filled with stories about 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), an illness that started in Wuhan, China; as of Jan. 31, 2020, there were 9,776 confirmed cases and 213 deaths. There have been an additional 118 cases reported outside of mainland China, including 6 in the United States, and no one outside of China has died.

The response to the virus has been remarkable: Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million inhabitants, is on lockdown, as are 15 other cities in China; 46 million people have been affected, the largest quarantine in human history. Travel is restricted in parts of China, airports all over the world are screening those who fly in from Wuhan, foreign governments are bringing their citizens home from Wuhan, and even Starbucks has temporarily closed half its stores in China. The economics of containing this virus are astounding.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that, as of the week of Jan. 25, there have been 19 million cases of the flu in the United States. Of those stricken, 180,000 people have been hospitalized and 10,000 have died, including 68 pediatric patients. No cities are on lockdown, public transportation runs as usual, airports don’t screen passengers for flu symptoms, and Starbucks continues to serve vanilla lattes to any willing customer. Anxiety about illness is not new; we’ve seen it with SARS, Ebola, measles, and even around Chipotle’s food poisoning cases – to name just a few recent scares. We have also seen a lot of media on vaping-related deaths, and as of early January 2020, vaping-related illnesses affected 2,602 people with 59 deaths. It has been a topic of discussion among legislators, with an emphasis on either outlawing the flavoring that might appeal to younger people or simply outlawing e-cigarettes. No one, however, is talking about outlawing regular cigarettes, despite the fact that many people have switched from cigarettes to vaping products as a way to quit smoking. So, while vaping has caused 59 deaths since 2018, cigarettes are responsible for 480,000 fatalities a year in the United States and smokers live, on average, 10 years less than nonsmokers.

So what fuels anxiety about the latest health scare, and why aren’t we more anxious about the more common causes of premature mortality? Certainly, the newness and the unknown are factors in the coronavirus scare. It’s not certain how this illness was introduced into the human population, although one theory is that it started with the consumption of bats who carry the virus. It’s spreading fast, and in some people, it has been lethal. The incubation period is not known, or whether it is contagious before symptoms appear. Coronavirus is getting a lot of public health attention and the World Health Organization just announced that the virus is a public health emergency of international concern. On the televised news on Jan. 29, 2020, coronavirus was the top story in the United States, even though an impeachment trial is in progress for our country’s president.

The public health response of locking down cities may help contain the outbreak and prevent a global epidemic, although millions of people had already left Wuhan, so the heavy-handed attempt to prevent spread of the virus may well be too late. In the case of the Ebola virus – a much more lethal disease that was also thought to be introduced by bats – public health measures certainly curtailed global spread, and the epidemic of 2014-2016 was limited to 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths, nearly all of them in West Africa.

Most of the things that cause people to die are not new and are not topics the media chooses to sensationalize. Dissemination of news has changed over the decades, with so much more of it, instant reports on social media, and competition for viewers that leads journalists to pull at our emotions. We might worry about getting food poisoning from romaine lettuce – if that is what the news is focusing on – but we don’t worry when we enter our cars, keep firearms in our homes, or light up cigarettes. And while we may, or may not, get flu shots and avoid those who have the flu, how and where we position both our anxiety and our resources does not always make sense. Certainly some people are predisposed to worry about both common and uncommon dangers, while others seem never to worry and engage in acts that many of us would consider dangerous. If we are looking for logic, it may be hard to find – there are those who would happily go bungee jumping but wouldn’t dream of leaving the house out without hand sanitizer.

The repercussions from this massive response to the Wuhan coronavirus are significant. For the millions of people on lockdown in China, each day gets emotionally harder; some may begin to have issues procuring food, and the financial losses for the economy will be significant. It’s not really possible to know yet if this response is warranted; we do know that infectious diseases can kill millions. The AIDS pandemic has taken the lives of 36 million people since 1981, and the influenza pandemic of 1918 resulted in an estimated 20 million to 50 million deaths after infecting 500 million people. Still, one might wonder if other, more mundane causes of morbidity and mortality – the ones that no longer garner our dread or make it to the front pages – might also be worthy of more hype and resources.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

A number of years ago, a patient I was treating mentioned that she was not eating tomatoes. There had been stories in the news about people contracting bacterial infections from tomatoes, but I paused for a moment, then asked her: “Have there been any contaminated tomatoes here in Maryland?” There had not been and I was still happily eating salsa, but my patient thought about this differently: If disease-causing tomatoes were to come to our state, someone would be the first person to become ill. She did not want to take any risks. My patient, however, was a heavy smoker and already grappling with health issues that were caused by smoking, so I found her choice of what she should worry about and how it influenced her behavior to be perplexing. I realize it’s not the same; nicotine is an addiction, while tomatoes remain a choice for most of us, and it’s common for people to worry about very unlikely events even when we are surrounded by very real and statistically more probable threats to our well-being.

Today’s news reports are filled with stories about 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), an illness that started in Wuhan, China; as of Jan. 31, 2020, there were 9,776 confirmed cases and 213 deaths. There have been an additional 118 cases reported outside of mainland China, including 6 in the United States, and no one outside of China has died.

The response to the virus has been remarkable: Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million inhabitants, is on lockdown, as are 15 other cities in China; 46 million people have been affected, the largest quarantine in human history. Travel is restricted in parts of China, airports all over the world are screening those who fly in from Wuhan, foreign governments are bringing their citizens home from Wuhan, and even Starbucks has temporarily closed half its stores in China. The economics of containing this virus are astounding.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that, as of the week of Jan. 25, there have been 19 million cases of the flu in the United States. Of those stricken, 180,000 people have been hospitalized and 10,000 have died, including 68 pediatric patients. No cities are on lockdown, public transportation runs as usual, airports don’t screen passengers for flu symptoms, and Starbucks continues to serve vanilla lattes to any willing customer. Anxiety about illness is not new; we’ve seen it with SARS, Ebola, measles, and even around Chipotle’s food poisoning cases – to name just a few recent scares. We have also seen a lot of media on vaping-related deaths, and as of early January 2020, vaping-related illnesses affected 2,602 people with 59 deaths. It has been a topic of discussion among legislators, with an emphasis on either outlawing the flavoring that might appeal to younger people or simply outlawing e-cigarettes. No one, however, is talking about outlawing regular cigarettes, despite the fact that many people have switched from cigarettes to vaping products as a way to quit smoking. So, while vaping has caused 59 deaths since 2018, cigarettes are responsible for 480,000 fatalities a year in the United States and smokers live, on average, 10 years less than nonsmokers.

So what fuels anxiety about the latest health scare, and why aren’t we more anxious about the more common causes of premature mortality? Certainly, the newness and the unknown are factors in the coronavirus scare. It’s not certain how this illness was introduced into the human population, although one theory is that it started with the consumption of bats who carry the virus. It’s spreading fast, and in some people, it has been lethal. The incubation period is not known, or whether it is contagious before symptoms appear. Coronavirus is getting a lot of public health attention and the World Health Organization just announced that the virus is a public health emergency of international concern. On the televised news on Jan. 29, 2020, coronavirus was the top story in the United States, even though an impeachment trial is in progress for our country’s president.

The public health response of locking down cities may help contain the outbreak and prevent a global epidemic, although millions of people had already left Wuhan, so the heavy-handed attempt to prevent spread of the virus may well be too late. In the case of the Ebola virus – a much more lethal disease that was also thought to be introduced by bats – public health measures certainly curtailed global spread, and the epidemic of 2014-2016 was limited to 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths, nearly all of them in West Africa.

Most of the things that cause people to die are not new and are not topics the media chooses to sensationalize. Dissemination of news has changed over the decades, with so much more of it, instant reports on social media, and competition for viewers that leads journalists to pull at our emotions. We might worry about getting food poisoning from romaine lettuce – if that is what the news is focusing on – but we don’t worry when we enter our cars, keep firearms in our homes, or light up cigarettes. And while we may, or may not, get flu shots and avoid those who have the flu, how and where we position both our anxiety and our resources does not always make sense. Certainly some people are predisposed to worry about both common and uncommon dangers, while others seem never to worry and engage in acts that many of us would consider dangerous. If we are looking for logic, it may be hard to find – there are those who would happily go bungee jumping but wouldn’t dream of leaving the house out without hand sanitizer.

The repercussions from this massive response to the Wuhan coronavirus are significant. For the millions of people on lockdown in China, each day gets emotionally harder; some may begin to have issues procuring food, and the financial losses for the economy will be significant. It’s not really possible to know yet if this response is warranted; we do know that infectious diseases can kill millions. The AIDS pandemic has taken the lives of 36 million people since 1981, and the influenza pandemic of 1918 resulted in an estimated 20 million to 50 million deaths after infecting 500 million people. Still, one might wonder if other, more mundane causes of morbidity and mortality – the ones that no longer garner our dread or make it to the front pages – might also be worthy of more hype and resources.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.