4.6 Review

Detection, survival and infectious potential of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in the environment: a review of the evidence and epidemiological implications

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 53, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02302-2018

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award
  2. National Institutes of Health T32 Training Grant [T32 AI 052073]
  3. National Institutes of Health, New Innovator Award [DP2 AI 131082]
  4. South African Medical Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Much remains unknown about Mycobacterium tuberculosis transmission. Seminal experimental studies from the 1950s demonstrated that airborne expulsion of droplet nuclei from an infectious tuberculosis (TB) patient is the primary route of transmission. However, these findings did not rule out other routes of M. tuberculosis transmission. We reviewed historical scientific evidence from the late 19th/early 20th century and contemporary studies investigating the presence, persistence and infectiousness of environmental M. tuberculosis. We found both experimental and epidemiological evidence supporting the presence and viability of M. tuberculosis in multiple natural and built environments for months to years, presumably following contamination by a human source. Furthermore, several studies confirm M. tuberculosis viability and virulence in the environment using guinea pig and mouse models. Most of this evidence was historical; however, several recent studies have reported consistent findings of M. tuberculosis detection and viability in the environment using modern methods. Whether M. tuberculosis in environments represents an infectious threat to humans requires further investigation; this may represent an untapped source of data with which to further understand M. tuberculosis transmission. We discuss potential opportunities for harnessing these data to generate new insights into TB transmission in congregate settings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据