4.1 Review

Nontuberculous mycobacteria: the changing epidemiology and treatment challenges in cystic fibrosis

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN PULMONARY MEDICINE
卷 19, 期 6, 页码 662-669

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCP.0b013e328365ab33

关键词

cystic fibrosis; Mycobacterium abscessus; Mycobacterium avium complex; nontuberculous mycobacteria

资金

  1. Division of Intramural Research, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  2. National Institutes of Health Clinical Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of reviewAlthough patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) face numerous infectious pathogens over the course of their lifespan, increasing attention has recently been paid to nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM). As reported prevalence rates rise across many countries such as the United States, the ability to recognize disease caused by NTM and subsequently treat such disease has become increasingly important. This review summarizes new observations on the epidemiology of NTM in CF as well as key elements to consider during the treatment phase.Recent findingsAlthough overall rates of NTM isolation appear to be increasing, particular concern has focused on the emerging predominance of Mycobacterium abscessus. New data suggest that chronic macrolide therapy now part of routine CF care has contributed to this rise; however, these have yet to be confirmed prospectively. Transmission of M. abscessus between CF patients has also now been described through the use of genome sequencing. Although the greater virulence of M. abscessus makes it a challenging species to treat, identification of the subspecies type can now determine the presence of inducible macrolide resistance, thereby helping to guide treatment.SummaryGiven increasing prevalence rates, clinicians should maintain a high level of suspicion for NTM as disease-causing organisms in CF, particularly for M. abscessus. New knowledge regarding this species, however, can help to tailor appropriate therapy.

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

4.1
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