| Literature DB >> 31022253 |
Yoshifumi Kimizuka1,2, Yoshihiko Hoshino3, Tomoyasu Nishimura4, Takahiro Asami1, Yumi Sakakibara5, Kozo Morimoto6, Shinji Maeda7, Noboru Nakata3, Takayuki Abe8, Shunsuke Uno9, Ho Namkoong1, Hiroshi Fujiwara9, Yohei Funatsu1, Kazuma Yagi1, Toshihide Fujie5, Makoto Ishii1, Naohiko Inase5, Satoshi Iwata10, Atsuyuki Kurashima6, Tomoko Betsuyaku1, Naoki Hasegawa9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no proven management for mild cases of Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) pulmonary disease, who do not immediately receive treatment and are managed with observation alone, because its long term-natural course, factors predictive of deterioration, and the effect of treating the disease remain unclear. Thus, we sought to investigate the natural course of mild cases of MAC pulmonary disease.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31022253 PMCID: PMC6483267 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216034
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flow chart of the study of patients with mild Mycobacterium avium complex pulmonary disease.
MAC = Mycobacterium avium complex.
Characteristics of patients with mildly symptomatic Mycobacterium avium complex pulmonary disease*.
| Total | Untreated group | Treated group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male 22 | Male 21 | Male 1 | |
| Female 43 | Female 29 | Female 14 | ||
| Age (years) | 65 ± 12.7 | 66 ± 13.5 | 62 ± 9.8 | |
| Smoking status | ||||
| Current + former smoker | 12 (18.5) | 10 (20.0) | 2 (16.7) | |
| (Brinkman index) | 447.9 ± 334.6 | 410.0 ± 238.6 | 550.0 ± 226.3 | |
| Non-smoker | 53 (81.5) | 40 (80.0) | 13 (86.7) | |
| Drinking history | ||||
| Habitual drinker | 14 (21.5) | 13 (26.0) | 1 (6.7) | |
| Occasional drinker | 7 (10.8) | 5 (10.0) | 2 (13.3) | |
| Non-drinker | 44 (67.7) | 32 (64.0) | 12 (80.0) | |
| Body mass index | 21.6 ± 2.5 | 21.7 ± 2.6 | 20.8 ± 2.9 | |
| %VC (%) | 89.8 ± 16.0 | 88.5 ± 16.7 | 95.5 ± 12.7 | |
| %FEV1.0 (%) | 90.3 ± 26.6 | 91.7 ± 27.1 | 87.6 ± 25.8 | |
| Peak Flow (l/sec) | 6.09 ± 1.86 | 6.30 ± 1.91 | 5.30 ± 1.51 | |
| V50 (l/sec) | 2.19 ± 1.08 | 2.33 ± 1.08 | 1.68 ± 0.98 | |
| V25 (l/sec) | 0.61 ± 0.38 | 0.66 ± 0.38 | 0.44 ± 0.36 | |
| Radiological findings score (CXR) | ||||
| Nodule | 7 ± 3.9 | 6 ± 3.2 | 11 ± 3.1 | |
| Infiltrate | 3 ± 3.9 | 3 ± 4.1 | 5 ± 2.7 | |
| Cavity | 0 ± 0.5 | 0 ± 0.5 | 0 ± 0.5 | |
| Ectasis | 6 ± 3.5 | 5 ± 3.0 | 9 ± 3.4 | |
| Radiological findings score (CT) | (n = 60) | (n = 47) | (n = 13) | |
| Nodule | 8 ± 4.3 | 8 ± 4.5 | 8 ± 3.7 | |
| Infiltrate | 3 ± 3.5 | 3 ± 3.7 | 4 ± 2.7 | |
| Cavity | 0 ± 0.5 | 0 ± 0.5 | 0 ± 0.6 | |
| Ectasis | 7 ± 4.2 | 7 ± 4.3 | 7 ± 4.1 |
%VC, vital capacity as percent of predicted; %FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 s as percent of forced vital capacity; V50, flow at 50% of forced vital capacity; V25, flow at 25% of forced vital capacity.
*Data are presented as mean ± SD or n (%).
†: Differences between observation and treatment groups were tested using the χ2 test for categorical data and an unpaired t test for comparison of means.
‡: P < 0.05.
§:BMI at diagnosis are shown. n = 52, 39, 13.
||: Respiratory function test result are shown. n = 38, 30, 8.
**: Radiological findings score on CT are shown. n = 60, 47, 13.
Longitudinal changes in clinical features in the observation group.
| At diagnosis | Last visit | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Body mass index | 21.7 ± 2.6 | 20.6 ± 2.7 | |
| %VC | 88.5 ± 16.7 | 86.2 ± 17.4 | |
| %FEV1.0
| 91.7 ± 20.8 | 79.8 ± 20.8 | |
| Radiographic score (CXR) | |||
| Nodule | 5.6 ± 3.2 | 7.3 ± 5.0 | |
| Infiltrate | 3.0 ± 4.1 | 4.6 ± 5.9 | |
| Cavity | 0.1 ± 0.5 | 0.1 ± 0.4 | |
| Ectasis | 4.9 ± 3.0 | 6.5 ± 3.5 | |
| Radiographic score (CT) | |||
| Nodule | 8.4 ± 4.5 | 11.4 ± 5.4 | |
| Infiltrate | 2.9 ± 3.7 | 4.6 ± 4.7 | |
| Cavity | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 0.6 ± 1.5 | |
| Ectasis | 7.4 ± 4.3 | 10.6 ± 4.0 | |
%VC, vital capacity as percent of predicted; %FEV1, Forced expiratory volume in 1 second as percent of forced vital capacity.
*t test (p < 0.05).
†:BMI at diagnosis are shown. n = 39, 32.
‡: Respiratory function test result are shown. n = 30, 33.
§: Radiological findings score on CXR are shown. n = 50, 50.
||: Radiological findings score on CT are shown. n = 47, 45.
Fig 2Longitudinal changes in clinical features of the untreated group.
The horizontal axis shows the observation period. The vertical axis shows clinical features or radiographic scores of chest X-ray (CXR) and chest computed-tomography (CT). Each bold red line represents the average profile of the group using the mixed effect model. A: Body mass index (BMI); B: %VC (vital capacity as percent of predicted); C: %FEV1 (Forced expiratory volume in 1 second as percent of forced vital capacity); and radiologic scores of D: nodule (CXR), E: infiltrate (CXR), F: cavity (CXR), G: ectasis (CXR), H: nodule (CT), I: infiltrate (CT), J: cavity (CT), and K: ectasis (CT). *: Asterisks denote significant changes in the entire group through the observation period. Radiological findings score on CXR are shown. n = 50, 50. Radiological findings score on CT are shown. n = 47, 45.
Longitudinal changes of clinical features in the treatment group.
| At diagnosis | At start of treatment | Last visit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Throughout observation | ||||
| Body mass index† | 21.5 ± 2.9 | 20.9 ± 2.7 | 20.2 ± 2.7 | |||
| %VC (%) | 96.6 ± 12.8 | 95.8 ± 13.3 | 89.1 ± 14.7 | |||
| %FEV1 (%) | 89.7 ± 23.1 | 82.5 ± 14.3 | 80.3 ± 24.0 | |||
| Radiographic scores (CXR) | ||||||
| Nodule | 10.8 ± 3.1 | 12.1 ± 3.5 | 11.3 ± 2.9 | |||
| Infiltrate | 5.1 ± 2.7 | 7.9 ± 4.4 | 6.9 ± 4.4 | |||
| Cavity | 0.1 ± 0.5 | 0.1 ± 0.5 | 0.3 ± 0.6 | |||
| Ectasis | 8.9 ± 3.4 | 10.3 ± 3.0 | 11.0 ± 3.3 | |||
| Radiographic scores (CT) | ||||||
| Nodule | 8.3 ± 3.7 | 12.2 ± 3.7 | 8.1 ± 4.7 | |||
| Infiltrate | 3.6 ± 2.7 | 5.3 ± 2.6 | 4.1 ± 2.8 | |||
| Cavity | 0.2 ± 0.6 | 0.5 ± 0.9 | 0.4 ± 0.8 | |||
| Ectasis | 6.5 ± 4.1 | 9.4 ± 4.9 | 10.3 ± 4.5 | |||
%VC, vital capacity as percent of predicted; %FEV1, Forced expiratory volume in 1 second as percent of forced vital capacity
Patients without follow-up pulmonary function testing were excluded.
*t test (p < 0.05).
†:BMI at diagnosis are shown. n = 13, 9, 10.
‡: Respiratory function test result are shown. n = 8, 5, 4.
§: Radiological findings score on CXR are shown. n = 15, 15, 15.
||: Radiological findings score on CT are shown. n = 13, 13, 13.
Fig 3Longitudinal changes in clinical features of the treated group.
The horizontal axis shows the observation period. The vertical axis shows clinical features or radiographic scores of chest X-ray (CXR) and chest computed-tomography (CT). Each bold blue line represents the average profile of the group using the mixed effect model. A: Body mass index (BMI); B: %VC (vital capacity as percent of predicted); C: %FEV1 (Forced expiratory volume in 1 second as percent of forced vital capacity); and radiologic scores of D: nodule (CXR), E: infiltrate (CXR), F: cavity (CXR), G: ectasis (CXR), H: nodule (CT), I: infiltrate (CT), J: cavity (CT), and K: ectasis (CT). *: Asterisks denote significant changes in the entire group through the observation period. Radiological findings score on CXR are shown. n = 15, 15, 15. Radiological findings score on CT are shown. n = 13, 13, 13.
Comparison of bacterial factors at diagnosis between the observation and treatment groups.
| Total | Untreated group | Treated group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isolated species | ||||
| | 59 (90.8) | 44 (88.0) | 15 (100.0) | |
| | 6 (9.2) | 4 (8.0) | 2 (13.3) | |
| | 3 (4.6) | 1 (2.0) | 2 (13.3) | |
| | 4 (6.2) | 4 (8.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| MAC | 3 (4.6) | 3 (6.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Polyclonality analyzed by VNTR | ||||
| Polyclonal + mixed infection | 15 (23.1) | 9 (18.0) | 6 (40.0) | |
| Polyclonal infection | 9 (13.8) | 4 (8.0) | 5 (33.3) | |
| Mixed infection | 10 (15.3) | 6 (12.0) | 4 (26.7) | |
| Insertion sequence | (n = 55) | (n = 40) | (n = 15) | |
| IS 1245 | 49 (89.1) | 36 (90.0) | 13 (86.7) | |
| IS 1311 | 44 (80.0) | 31 (77.5) | 13 (86.7) | |
| IS | 29 (52.7) | 19 (47.5) | 10 (66.7) | |
| IS | 13 (23.6) | 11 (27.5) | 2 (13.3) | |
| Plasmids † | (n = 53) | (n = 39) | (n = 14) | |
| pMAH | 9 (17.0) | 6 (15.3) | 3 (21.4) | |
| pLR7 | 1 (1.9) | 1 (2.6) | 0 (0.0) | |
| pVT2 | 10 (18.9) | 6 (15.4) | 4 (28.6) | |
| pMAH + pVT2 | 5 (9.4) | 3 (7.7) | 2 (14.3) | |
| pMAH + pLR7 + pVT2 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
VNTR, variable-number tandem-repeat.
*P < 0.05.
†: Only cases in which we could isolate and evaluate the strains of Mycobacterium avium.
Fig 4Minimum spanning tree of Mycobacterium avium complex isolates based on 16 loci variable-number tandem-repeat typing patterns.
Each circle corresponds to a different type identified using variable-number tandem-repeat (VNTR) genotyping. Heavy lines connecting two VNTR types signify that they are single-locus variants, thin lines connect double-locus variants, and dotted lines (black) connect triple-locus variants. Black circles correspond to a strain isolated from a case for which treatment was initiated during the observation (treated group). Strains were classified into 3 general groups by dotted-line circles.
Fig 5Manhattan distance from center of minimum spanning tree of Mycobacterium avium complex isolates.
Manhattan distances were calculated based on the variable-number tandem-repeat (VNTR) pattern of center strains in the minimum spanning tree. *: Asterisks denote significant difference between the treated and the untreated groups.