The problem of Mycobacterium abscessus complex: multi-drug resistance, bacteriophage susceptibility and potential healthcare transmission.

OBJECTIVES: Mycobacterium abscessus complex is responsible for 2.6-13.0% of all non-tuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary infections and these are notoriously difficult to treat due to the complex regimens required, drug resistance and adverse effects. Hence, bacteriophages have been considered in clinical practice as an additional treatment option. Here, we evaluated antibiotic and phage susceptibility profiles of M. abscessus clinical isolates. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) revealed the phylogenetic relationships, dominant circulating clones (DCCs), the likelihood of patient-to-patient transmission and the presence of prophages. METHODS: Antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed using CLSI breakpoints (n = 95), and plaque assays were used for phage susceptibility testing (subset of n = 88, 35 rough and 53 smooth morphology). WGS was completed using the Illumina platform and analysed using Snippy/snp-dists and Discovery and Extraction of Phages Tool (DEPhT). RESULTS: Amikacin and Tigecycline were the most active drugs (with 2 strains resistant to amikacin, and one strain with Tigecycline MIC of 4 µg/mL). Most strains were resistant to all other drugs tested, with Linezolid and Imipenem showing the least resistance, at 38% (36/95) and 55% (52/95), respectively. Rough colony morphotype strains were more phage-susceptible than smooth strains (77%-27/35 versus 48%-25/53 in the plaque assays, but smooth strains are not killed efficiently by those phages in liquid infection assay). We have also identified 100 resident prophages, some of which were propagated lytically. DCC1 (20%-18/90) and DCC4 (22%-20/90) were observed to be the major clones and WGS identified 6 events of possible patient-to-patient transmission. DISCUSSION: Many strains of M. abscessus complex are intrinsically resistant to available antibiotics and bacteriophages represent an alternative therapeutic option, but only for strains with rough morphology. Further studies are needed to elucidate the role of hospital-borne M. abscessus transmission.

Antimicrobial stewardship in solid organ transplant-Opportunities in the National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is an intervention, which ensures the appropriateness of antimicrobial use to avoid in part the rising problem of antimicrobial resistance and negative effects of inappropriate antimicrobial use. In the solid organ transplant (SOT) population, which is prone to a particularly high risk of infection resulting from immunosuppression and anatomical issues with each type of SOT, the need for good stewardship has never been more important. This article looks at current AMS practice in SOT units in the United Kingdom and how things could be improved in the future. METHODS: The current practice of AMS alongside national antimicrobial resistance rates were reviewed using national mandatory reporting data. The background to the current practice and policies in place in the National Health Service (NHS) were also reviewed and possibilities for future approaches explored. RESULTS: AMS is a requirement within all NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom as per government policy. Mandatory reporting of specific bloodstream infections (BSIs) and antimicrobial consumption alongside financial incentives has been the approach nationwide. Gram-negative resistance rates in BSIs have been increasing prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Little SOT-specific data on antimicrobial resistance exists, and the general approach to AMS in SOT units has generally modeled the national approach. CONCLUSION: Although there is a good, standardized approach to AMS in the NHS, there is a need for SOT-specific AMS approaches to be developed in the United Kingdom. More data is required on antimicrobial resistance rates, and studies are needed to investigate optimal antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens for each solid organ group. Tools to aid AMS efforts and novel treatment options for complex multiresistant infection must also be explored amongst transplant centers.

Toxicity associated with tuberculosis chemotherapy in the REMoxTB study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and severity of tuberculosis chemotherapy toxicity is poorly characterised. We used data available from patients in the REMoxTB trial to provide an assessment of the risks associated with the standard regimen and two experimental regimens containing moxifloxacin. METHODS: All grade 3 & 4 adverse events (AEs) and their relationship to treatment for patients who had taken at least one dose of therapy in the REMoxTB clinical trial were recorded. Univariable logistic regression was used to test the relationship of baseline characteristics to the incidence of grade 3 & 4 AEs and significant characteristics (p < 0.10) were incorporated into a multivariable model. The timing of AEs during therapy was analysed in standard therapy and the experimental arms. Logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between AEs (total and related-only) and microbiological cure on treatment. RESULTS: In the standard therapy arm 57 (8.9%) of 639 patients experienced ≥1 related AEs with 80 of the total 113 related events (70.8%) occurring in the intensive phase of treatment. Both four-month experimental arms ("isoniazid arm" with moxifloxacin substituted for ethambutol & "ethambutol arm" with moxifloxacin substituted for isoniazid) had a lower total of related grade 3 & 4 AEs than standard therapy (63 & 65 vs 113 AEs). Female gender (adjOR 1.97, 95% CI 0.91-1.83) and HIV-positive status (adjOR 3.33, 95% CI 1.55-7.14) were significantly associated with experiencing ≥1 related AE (p < 0.05) on standard therapy. The most common adverse events on standard therapy related to hepatobiliary, musculoskeletal and metabolic disorders. Patients who experienced ≥1 related AE were more likely to fail treatment or relapse (adjOR 3.11, 95% CI 1.59-6.10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most AEs considered related to standard therapy occurred in the intensive phase of treatment with female patients and HIV-positive patients demonstrating a significantly higher risk of AEs during treatment. Almost a tenth of standard therapy patients had a significant side effect, whereas both experimental arms recorded a lower incidence of toxicity. That patients with one or more AE are more likely to fail treatment suggests that treatment outcomes could be improved by identifying such patients through targeted monitoring.

Spot sputum samples are at least as good as early morning samples for identifying Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: The use of early morning sputum samples (EMS) to diagnose tuberculosis (TB) can result in treatment delay given the need for the patient to return to the clinic with the EMS, increasing the chance of patients being lost during their diagnostic workup. However, there is little evidence to support the superiority of EMS over spot sputum samples. In this new analysis of the REMoxTB study, we compare the diagnostic accuracy of EMS with spot samples for identifying Mycobacterium tuberculosis pre- and post-treatment. METHODS: Patients who were smear positive at screening were enrolled into the study. Paired sputum samples (one EMS and one spot) were collected at each trial visit pre- and post-treatment. Microscopy and culture on solid LJ and liquid MGIT media were performed on all samples; those missing corresponding paired results were excluded from the analyses. RESULTS: Data from 1115 pre- and 2995 post-treatment paired samples from 1931 patients enrolled in the REMoxTB study were analysed. Patients were recruited from South Africa (47%), East Africa (21%), India (20%), Asia (11%), and North America (1%); 70% were male, median age 31 years (IQR 24-41), 139 (7%) co-infected with HIV with a median CD4 cell count of 399 cells/µL (IQR 318-535). Pre-treatment spot samples had a higher yield of positive Ziehl-Neelsen smears (98% vs. 97%, P = 0.02) and LJ cultures (87% vs. 82%, P = 0.006) than EMS, but there was no difference for positivity by MGIT (93% vs. 95%, P = 0.18). Contaminated and false-positive MGIT were found more often with EMS rather than spot samples. Surprisingly, pre-treatment EMS had a higher smear grading and shorter time-to-positivity, by 1 day, than spot samples in MGIT culture (4.5 vs. 5.5 days, P < 0.001). There were no differences in time to positivity in pre-treatment LJ culture, or in post-treatment MGIT or LJ cultures. Comparing EMS and spot samples in those with unfavourable outcomes, there were no differences in smear or culture results, and positive results were not detected earlier in Kaplan-Meier analyses in either EMS or spot samples. CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support the hypothesis that EMS samples are superior to spot sputum samples in a clinical trial of patients with smear positive pulmonary TB. Observed small differences in mycobacterial burden are of uncertain significance and EMS samples do not detect post-treatment positives any sooner than spot samples.