BACKGROUND: Sputum smear microscopy is commonly used for diagnosing tuberculosis (TB). Although patients with sputum smear-negative TB are less infectious than patients with smear-positive TB, they also contribute to TB transmission. The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of TB transmission events caused by patients with smear-negative pulmonary TB in The Netherlands. METHODS: All patients in The Netherlands with culture-confirmed TB during the period 1996-2004 were included in this study. Patients with identical DNA fingerprints in Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from sputum samples were clustered. The first patients in a cluster were considered to be the index patients; all other patients were considered to have secondary cases. In addition, we examined transmission from sources by conventional contact tracing. RESULTS: We analyzed 394 clusters with a total of 1285 patients. On the basis of molecular linkage only, 12.6% of the secondary cases were attributable to transmission from a patient with smear-negative TB. The relative transmission rate among patients with smear-negative TB, compared with patients with smear-positive TB, was 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.30). Secondary cases in clusters with an index patient with smear-negative TB more frequently had smear-negative status (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.93), compared with secondary cases in clusters with an index patient with smear-positive TB. Conventional contact tracing revealed that 26 (6.2%) of the 417 sources, as identified by the Municipal Health Services, had smear-negative TB. CONCLUSIONS: In The Netherlands, patients with smear-negative, culture-positive TB are responsible for 13% of TB transmission. Countries that have ample resources should expand their TB-control efforts to include prevention of transmission from patients with smear-negative, culture-positive pulmonary TB.
BACKGROUND: Sputum smear microscopy is commonly used for diagnosing tuberculosis (TB). Although patients with sputum smear-negative TB are less infectious than patients with smear-positive TB, they also contribute to TB transmission. The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of TB transmission events caused by patients with smear-negative pulmonary TB in The Netherlands. METHODS: All patients in The Netherlands with culture-confirmed TB during the period 1996-2004 were included in this study. Patients with identical DNA fingerprints in Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from sputum samples were clustered. The first patients in a cluster were considered to be the index patients; all other patients were considered to have secondary cases. In addition, we examined transmission from sources by conventional contact tracing. RESULTS: We analyzed 394 clusters with a total of 1285 patients. On the basis of molecular linkage only, 12.6% of the secondary cases were attributable to transmission from a patient with smear-negative TB. The relative transmission rate among patients with smear-negative TB, compared with patients with smear-positive TB, was 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.30). Secondary cases in clusters with an index patient with smear-negative TB more frequently had smear-negative status (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.93), compared with secondary cases in clusters with an index patient with smear-positive TB. Conventional contact tracing revealed that 26 (6.2%) of the 417 sources, as identified by the Municipal Health Services, had smear-negative TB. CONCLUSIONS: In The Netherlands, patients with smear-negative, culture-positive TB are responsible for 13% of TB transmission. Countries that have ample resources should expand their TB-control efforts to include prevention of transmission from patients with smear-negative, culture-positive pulmonary TB.
Authors: Robert Blakemore; Pamela Nabeta; Amy L Davidow; Viral Vadwai; Rasim Tahirli; Vanisha Munsamy; Mark Nicol; Martin Jones; David H Persing; Doris Hillemann; Sabine Ruesch-Gerdes; Felicity Leisegang; Carlos Zamudio; Camilla Rodrigues; Catharina C Boehme; Mark D Perkins; David Alland Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Faiz Ahmad Khan; Sabine Verkuijl; Andrew Parrish; Fadzai Chikwava; Raphael Ntumy; Wafaa El-Sadr; Andrea A Howard Journal: AIDS Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Onno W Akkerman; Tjip S van der Werf; Frank Rietkerk; Tony Eger; Dick van Soolingen; Kees van der Loo; Adri G M van der Zanden Journal: Med Microbiol Immunol Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Grant Theron; Jason Limberis; Rouxjeane Venter; Liezel Smith; Elize Pietersen; Aliasgar Esmail; Greg Calligaro; Julian Te Riele; Marianna de Kock; Paul van Helden; Tawanda Gumbo; Taane G Clark; Kevin Fennelly; Robin Warren; Keertan Dheda Journal: Nat Med Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Winceslaus Katagira; Nicholas D Walter; Saskia Den Boon; Nelson Kalema; Irene Ayakaka; Eric Vittinghoff; William Worodria; Adithya Cattamanchi; Laurence Huang; John Lucian Davis Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: D Shepardson; S M Marks; H Chesson; A Kerrigan; D P Holland; N Scott; X Tian; A S Borisov; N Shang; C M Heilig; T R Sterling; M E Villarino; W R Mac Kenzie Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Isdore Chola Shamputa; Jongseok Lee; Caroline Allix-Béguec; Eun-Jin Cho; Ji-im Lee; Vignesh Rajan; Eun Gae Lee; Jin Hong Min; Matthew W Carroll; Lisa C Goldfeder; Jin Hee Kim; Hyung Seok Kang; Soohee Hwang; Seok-Yong Eum; Seung Kyu Park; Hyeyoung Lee; Philip Supply; Sang-Nae Cho; Laura E Via; Clifton E Barry Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 5.948