Epidemiology and management of nontuberculous mycobacterial disease in people with cystic fibrosis, the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are opportunistic, difficult to treat pathogens. With increasing prevalence of NTM infections in people with cystic fibrosis (pwCF) and the improved life expectancy, the burden is expected to grow. METHODS: We assessed the epidemiology and management of NTM isolation and disease in pwCF in the Netherlands using a survey and retrospective, case-controlled data from the Dutch CF Registry. We determined the isolation prevalence, treatment and outcomes from 2013-2019. RESULTS: NTM isolation prevalence increased from 1.0% to 3.6% (2013-2019). This was a single NTM isolation in 53.7% of the adults and 60.0% of the children. M. abscessus and M. avium complex (MAC) were most frequent (47.1 and 30.9%). Of the treated pwCF, 48.5% attained culture conversion of M. abscessus; 54.5% for MAC. Children with an NTM isolation showed more infections with S. maltophilia and/or A. fumigatus (p < 0.001) compared to controls. In the year prior to NTM isolation, children in the NTM group had a lower mean FEV1% predicted (81.5 ± 16.7 vs. 88.6 ± 15.3, p = 0.024), while adults in the NTM group had more IV antibiotic days compared to controls (60 vs. 17, p = 0.047). In the following years, FEV1% predicted declined faster in pwCF with NTM than the control group (children: -3.8% vs. -1.6%, p = 0.023; adults: -0.7% and 0.4%, ns). CONCLUSIONS: The isolation prevalence of 3.6%, poor treatment outcomes and associated lung function decline emphasize that NTM pulmonary disease (NTM-PD) is a significant health issue among pwCF in the Netherlands. Its prevention and treatment require increased attention.

Development and outcomes of a patient driven cystic fibrosis quality of care improvement project.

The Dutch CF Foundation (NCFS) developed a quality improvement program, to assess and improve quality of care in all CF centers in The Netherlands. Criteria to assess quality of care from the patient perspective were defined, and quality of care was assessed by patients via online surveys and site visits. Recommendations were addressed to all centers to improve quality of care. Most recommendations were related to communicational issues. All centers were given the quality mark of the patient organisation, although two of them needed extra time to meet the lower limit of the core set of criteria. After two years, over 75 % of the recommendations given to the centers were fully or partly implemented, showing a high efficacy of the program.