BACKGROUND: An ongoing restriction fragment length polymorphism study of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from tuberculosis cases showed an identical 12-band IS6110 pattern unique to 3 unrelated patients (Patients A-C) diagnosed as having tuberculosis within a 9-month period. METHODS: In an attempt to identify epidemiologic links between the 3 patients, we performed site visits to the retail business work site of patient A and conducted detailed interviews with all 3 patients and their contacts. RESULTS: Patient B had visited patient A's work site 3 times during patient A's infectious period, spending no more than 15 minutes each time. Patient C visited patient A's work site on 6 to 10 occasions during this period for no more than 45 minutes at any one time. There were no other epidemiologic links between these 3 cases other than the contact at the store. Contact investigation identified 4 tuberculin skin test conversions among 8 (50%) of patient A's coworkers, 6 positive tests among 15 household contacts (40%), and 8 positive tests among 16 identified customers who were casual contacts (50%). Patient B and patient C were most likely infected by patient A during one of their brief visits to patient A's work site. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that some tuberculosis is spread through casual contact not normally pursued in traditional contact investigations and that, in certain situations, M tuberculosis can be transmitted despite minimal duration of exposure. In addition, this outbreak emphasizes the importance of DNA fingerprinting data for identifying unusual transmission in unexpected settings.
BACKGROUND: An ongoing restriction fragment length polymorphism study of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from tuberculosis cases showed an identical 12-band IS6110 pattern unique to 3 unrelated patients (Patients A-C) diagnosed as having tuberculosis within a 9-month period. METHODS: In an attempt to identify epidemiologic links between the 3 patients, we performed site visits to the retail business work site of patient A and conducted detailed interviews with all 3 patients and their contacts. RESULTS:Patient B had visited patient A's work site 3 times during patient A's infectious period, spending no more than 15 minutes each time. Patient C visited patient A's work site on 6 to 10 occasions during this period for no more than 45 minutes at any one time. There were no other epidemiologic links between these 3 cases other than the contact at the store. Contact investigation identified 4 tuberculin skin test conversions among 8 (50%) of patient A's coworkers, 6 positive tests among 15 household contacts (40%), and 8 positive tests among 16 identified customers who were casual contacts (50%). Patient B and patient C were most likely infected by patient A during one of their brief visits to patient A's work site. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that some tuberculosis is spread through casual contact not normally pursued in traditional contact investigations and that, in certain situations, M tuberculosis can be transmitted despite minimal duration of exposure. In addition, this outbreak emphasizes the importance of DNA fingerprinting data for identifying unusual transmission in unexpected settings.
Authors: Sarah V Leavitt; Robyn S Lee; Paola Sebastiani; C Robert Horsburgh; Helen E Jenkins; Laura F White Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Ingrid Filliol; Jeffrey R Driscoll; Dick van Soolingen; Barry N Kreiswirth; Kristin Kremer; Georges Valétudie; Duc Anh Dang; Rachael Barlow; Dilip Banerjee; Pablo J Bifani; Karine Brudey; Angel Cataldi; Robert C Cooksey; Debby V Cousins; Jeremy W Dale; Odir A Dellagostin; Francis Drobniewski; Guido Engelmann; Séverine Ferdinand; Deborah Gascoyne-Binzi; Max Gordon; M Cristina Gutierrez; Walter H Haas; Herre Heersma; Eric Kassa-Kelembho; Minh Ly Ho; Athanasios Makristathis; Caterina Mammina; Gerald Martin; Peter Moström; Igor Mokrousov; Valérie Narbonne; Olga Narvskaya; Antonino Nastasi; Sara Ngo Niobe-Eyangoh; Jean W Pape; Voahangy Rasolofo-Razanamparany; Malin Ridell; M Lucia Rossetti; Fritz Stauffer; Philip N Suffys; Howard Takiff; Jeanne Texier-Maugein; Véronique Vincent; Jacobus H de Waard; Christophe Sola; Nalin Rastogi Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Emma B Shak; Anne Marie France; Lauren Cowan; Angela M Starks; Juliana Grant Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Alberto Franchi; Luca Richeldi; Giovanni Parrinello; Giuliano Franco Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2006-12-13 Impact factor: 2.851
Authors: Felix C Ringshausen; Stephan Schlösser; Albert Nienhaus; Anja Schablon; Gerhard Schultze-Werninghaus; Gernot Rohde Journal: J Occup Med Toxicol Date: 2009-06-08 Impact factor: 2.646
Authors: Wendy A Cronin; Jonathan E Golub; Monica J Lathan; Leonard N Mukasa; Nancy Hooper; Jafar H Razeq; Nancy G Baruch; Donna Mulcahy; William H Benjamin; Laurence S Magder; G Thomas Strickland; William R Bishai Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 6.883