4.2 Article

Standardized Combination Antibiotic Treatment of Mycobacterium avium Complex Lung Disease

Journal

YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 51, Issue 6, Pages 888-894

Publisher

YONSEI UNIV COLL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2010.51.6.888

Keywords

Atypical mycobacteria; lung diseases; Mycobacterium avium complex; treatment outcomes

Funding

  1. Korea Science and Engineering Foundation [R01-2008-000-20839-0]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [R01-2008-000-20839-0] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The optimal treatment regimen for Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) lung disease has not yet been fully established. We evaluated the efficacy of standardized combination antibiotic therapy and the factors that might affect unfavorable microbiologic responses in patients with MAC pulmonary disease. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study reviewed data from 96 patients (56 females; median age 59 years) treated with newly diagnosed MAC lung disease between January 2003 and December 2006. Results: All patients received standardized combination antibiotic therapy, consisting of clarithromycin, rifampicin, and ethambutol. Streptomycin was additionally given in 72 patients (75%) for a median duration of 4.5 months. The overall favorable microbiologic response rate was 79% (76/96); 20 patients (21%) had unfavorable microbiologic responses, including failure to sputum conversion (n = 13), relapse (n = 3), and MAC-related death (n = 4). A positive sputum acid-fast bacillus smear at the start of treatment was an independent predictor of an unfavorable microbiologic response. Conclusion: Standardized combination antibiotic therapy consisting of clarithromycin, rifampicin, and ethambutol with or without initial use of streptomycin is effective in treating patients with newly diagnosed MAC lung disease.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available