RATIONALE: Airborne transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis results from incompletely characterized host, bacterial, and environmental factors. Sputum smear microscopy is associated with considerable variability in transmission. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of cough-generated aerosols of M. tuberculosis to predict recent transmission. METHODS: Patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) underwent a standard evaluation and collection of cough aerosol cultures of M. tuberculosis. We assessed household contacts for new M. tuberculosis infection. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis with cluster adjustment to analyze predictors of new infection. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From May 2009 to January 2011, we enrolled 96 sputum culture-positive index TB cases and their 442 contacts. Only 43 (45%) patients with TB yielded M. tuberculosis in aerosols. Contacts of patients with TB who produced high aerosols (≥10 CFU) were more likely to have a new infection compared with contacts from low-aerosol (1-9 CFU) and aerosol-negative cases (69%, 25%, and 30%, respectively; P = 0.009). A high-aerosol patient with TB was the only predictor of new M. tuberculosis infection in unadjusted (odds ratio, 5.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-17.61) and adjusted analyses (odds ratio, 4.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-19.23). Contacts of patients with TB with no aerosols versus low and high aerosols had differential tuberculin skin test and interferon-γ release assay responses. CONCLUSIONS: Cough aerosols of M. tuberculosis are produced by a minority of patients with TB but predict transmission better than sputum smear microscopy or culture. Cough aerosols may help identify the most infectious patients with TB and thus improve the cost-effectiveness of TB control programs.
RATIONALE: Airborne transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis results from incompletely characterized host, bacterial, and environmental factors. Sputum smear microscopy is associated with considerable variability in transmission. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of cough-generated aerosols of M. tuberculosis to predict recent transmission. METHODS:Patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) underwent a standard evaluation and collection of cough aerosol cultures of M. tuberculosis. We assessed household contacts for new M. tuberculosis infection. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis with cluster adjustment to analyze predictors of new infection. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From May 2009 to January 2011, we enrolled 96 sputum culture-positive index TB cases and their 442 contacts. Only 43 (45%) patients with TB yielded M. tuberculosis in aerosols. Contacts of patients with TB who produced high aerosols (≥10 CFU) were more likely to have a new infection compared with contacts from low-aerosol (1-9 CFU) and aerosol-negative cases (69%, 25%, and 30%, respectively; P = 0.009). A high-aerosol patient with TB was the only predictor of new M. tuberculosis infection in unadjusted (odds ratio, 5.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-17.61) and adjusted analyses (odds ratio, 4.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-19.23). Contacts of patients with TB with no aerosols versus low and high aerosols had differential tuberculin skin test and interferon-γ release assay responses. CONCLUSIONS: Cough aerosols of M. tuberculosis are produced by a minority of patients with TB but predict transmission better than sputum smear microscopy or culture. Cough aerosols may help identify the most infectious patients with TB and thus improve the cost-effectiveness of TB control programs.
Authors: C E Wainwright; M W France; P O'Rourke; S Anuj; T J Kidd; M D Nissen; T P Sloots; C Coulter; Z Ristovski; M Hargreaves; B R Rose; C Harbour; S C Bell; K P Fennelly Journal: Thorax Date: 2009-07-01 Impact factor: 9.139
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: Leonardo Martinez; María Eugenia Castellanos; Benjamin D Hallowell; Christopher C Whalen Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Julian S Peters; Jason R Andrews; Mark Hatherill; Sabine Hermans; Leonardo Martinez; Erwin Schurr; Yuri van der Heijden; Robin Wood; Roxana Rustomjee; Bavesh D Kana Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Palwasha Y Khan; Tom A Yates; Muhammad Osman; Robin M Warren; Yuri van der Heijden; Nesri Padayatchi; Edward A Nardell; David Moore; Barun Mathema; Neel Gandhi; Vegard Eldholm; Keertan Dheda; Anneke C Hesseling; Valerie Mizrahi; Roxana Rustomjee; Alexander Pym Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Keertan Dheda; Tawanda Gumbo; Neel R Gandhi; Megan Murray; Grant Theron; Zarir Udwadia; G B Migliori; Robin Warren Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Timothy Lahey; Tom Czechura; Scott Crabtree; Robert D Arbeit; Mecky Matee; C Robert Horsburgh; Todd MacKenzie; Muhammad Bakari; Kisali Pallangyo; C Fordham von Reyn Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Edward C Jones-López; Carlos Acuña-Villaorduña; Martin Ssebidandi; Mary Gaeddert; Rachel W Kubiak; Irene Ayakaka; Laura F White; Moses Joloba; Alphonse Okwera; Kevin P Fennelly Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Kevin P Fennelly; Carlos Acuna-Villaorduna; Edward Jones-Lopez; William G Lindsley; Donald K Milton Journal: Chest Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: P Fernandes; Y Ma; M Gaeddert; T Tsacogianis; P Marques-Rodrigues; G Fregona; A Loomans; E C Jones-López; R Dietze; J J Ellner; L F White; N S Hochberg Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 4.434