A Rough Colony Morphology of Mycobacterium abscessus Is Associated With Cavitary Pulmonary Disease and Poor Clinical Outcome.
Mycobacterium abscessus complex
colony morphology
nontuberculous mycobacteria
subspecies
treatment outcome
Journal
The Journal of infectious diseases
ISSN: 1537-6613
Titre abrégé: J Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0413675
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 03 2023
28 03 2023
Historique:
received:
13
10
2022
accepted:
11
01
2023
medline:
29
3
2023
pubmed:
14
1
2023
entrez:
13
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Mycobacterium abscessus complex (MABC) is a difficult to treat mycobacterium with two distinct morphologies: smooth and rough. As the clinical implications are unclear, we explored the morphology of MABC in relation to disease and outcome. We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study including patients with confirmed MABC in Sweden, 2009-2020, with treatment outcome as the primary outcome. MABC colony morphology was determined by light microscopy on Middlebrook 7H10 agar plates. Of the 71 MABC isolates, a defined morphology could be determined for 63 isolates, of which 40 were smooth (56%) and 23 were rough (32%). Immunosuppression, pulmonary disease, and cavitary lesion on chest radiographs were significantly associated with a rough isolate morphology. Participants with smooth isolates had more favorable treatment outcomes (12/14, 86%) compared to those with rough isolates (3/10, 30%). In an age-adjusted logistic regression, rough morphology of MABC was associated to lower odds of clinical cure compared to smooth morphology (adjusted odds ratio, 0.12; P = .049). Study participants with rough MABC colony morphology of isolates had a worse clinical outcome compared to those with smooth isolates. The biological mechanisms should be further characterized and colony morphology of MABC taken into account during clinical management.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The Mycobacterium abscessus complex (MABC) is a difficult to treat mycobacterium with two distinct morphologies: smooth and rough. As the clinical implications are unclear, we explored the morphology of MABC in relation to disease and outcome.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study including patients with confirmed MABC in Sweden, 2009-2020, with treatment outcome as the primary outcome. MABC colony morphology was determined by light microscopy on Middlebrook 7H10 agar plates.
RESULTS
Of the 71 MABC isolates, a defined morphology could be determined for 63 isolates, of which 40 were smooth (56%) and 23 were rough (32%). Immunosuppression, pulmonary disease, and cavitary lesion on chest radiographs were significantly associated with a rough isolate morphology. Participants with smooth isolates had more favorable treatment outcomes (12/14, 86%) compared to those with rough isolates (3/10, 30%). In an age-adjusted logistic regression, rough morphology of MABC was associated to lower odds of clinical cure compared to smooth morphology (adjusted odds ratio, 0.12; P = .049).
CONCLUSIONS
Study participants with rough MABC colony morphology of isolates had a worse clinical outcome compared to those with smooth isolates. The biological mechanisms should be further characterized and colony morphology of MABC taken into account during clinical management.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36637124
pii: 6986912
doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiad007
pmc: PMC10043986
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
820-827Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Potential conflicts of interest. All authors: No reported conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
Références
Eur Respir J. 2019 Jul 11;54(1):
pubmed: 30880280
Chest. 2017 Jul;152(1):120-142
pubmed: 28461147
Microbiology (Reading). 2006 Jun;152(Pt 6):1581-1590
pubmed: 16735722
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012 Jul;25(3):545-82
pubmed: 22763637
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;40(2):247-254
pubmed: 32875518
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Mar 11;111(10):E943-52
pubmed: 24567393
Nat Commun. 2022 Feb 17;13(1):952
pubmed: 35177649
J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Feb;39(2):816-9
pubmed: 11158161
PLoS One. 2013 May 16;8(5):e63237
pubmed: 23696800
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020 Jul;18(7):392-407
pubmed: 32086501
Eur Respir J. 2018 Mar 22;51(3):
pubmed: 29567726
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Jan;52(1):244-50
pubmed: 24197890
J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Jan;47(1):271-4
pubmed: 19020061
Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Feb 1;64(3):309-316
pubmed: 28011608
APMIS. 2013 Jan;121(1):45-55
pubmed: 23030647
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Aug 14;71(4):905-913
pubmed: 32797222
Front Microbiol. 2018 Nov 01;9:2642
pubmed: 30443245
J Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 16;221(Suppl 2):S257-S262
pubmed: 32176786
J Cyst Fibros. 2010 Mar;9(2):117-23
pubmed: 20071249
J Clin Microbiol. 2007 May;45(5):1497-504
pubmed: 17376883
Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Jun;39(3):362-376
pubmed: 30071551
Microbiol Immunol. 2010 Jun;54(6):347-53
pubmed: 20536733
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Nov 22;20(23):
pubmed: 31766758