Related Articles

High nasopharyngeal pneumococcal density, increased by viral coinfection, is associated with invasive pneumococcal pneumonia.

J Infect Dis. 2014 Nov 15;210(10):1649-57

Authors: Wolter N, Tempia S, Cohen C, Madhi SA, Venter M, Moyes J, Walaza S, Malope-Kgokong B, Groome M, du Plessis M, Magomani V, Pretorius M, Hellferscee O, Dawood H, Kahn K, Variava E, Klugman KP, von Gottberg A

Abstract
BACKGROUND: We identified factors associated with pneumococcal colonization, high colonization density, and invasive pneumococcal pneumonia among patients hospitalized with acute lower respiratory tract infections (ALRTIs).
METHODS: In 2010, 4025 cases were enrolled in surveillance in South Africa. A total of 969 of 4025 systematically selected nasopharyngeal-oropharyngeal specimens (24%) were tested for respiratory viruses and Streptococcus pneumoniae by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Of these, 749 (77%) had blood tested for S. pneumoniae.
RESULTS: Pneumococcal colonization was detected in 55% of cases (534 of 969). On multivariable analysis that controlled for age and tuberculosis treatment, infection with influenza virus (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-4.5), adenovirus (adjusted OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.7), rhinovirus (adjusted OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; adjusted OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4) were associated with pneumococcal colonization. High colonization density was associated with respiratory virus coinfection (adjusted OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6) and invasive pneumococcal pneumonia (adjusted OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3-4.0), after adjustment for age and sex. Seven percent (52 of 749) had pneumococci detected in blood. On multivariable analysis among colonized cases, invasive pneumococcal pneumonia was associated with HIV (adjusted OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.4-7.5), influenza virus (adjusted OR, 8.2; 95% CI, 2.7-25.0), high colonization density (adjusted OR, 18.7; 95% CI, 2.3-155.1), and ≥5 days of hospitalization (adjusted OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.7-8.2).
CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory virus infection was associated with elevated colonization density and, in turn, invasive pneumococcal pneumonia.

PMID: 24907383 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Airway wall thickness of allergic asthma caused by weed pollen or house dust mite assessed by computed tomography.

Respir Med. 2014 Dec 9;

Authors: Liu L, Li G, Sun Y, Li J, Tang N, Dong L

Abstract
PURPOSE: Little was known about Airway wall thickness of asthma patients with different allergen allergy. So we explored the possible difference of Airway wall thickness of asthma patients mono-sensitized to weed pollen or HDM using high-resolution computed tomography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 85 severe asthma patients were divided into weed pollen group and HDM group according to relevant allergen. 20 healthy donors served as controls. Airway wall area, percentage wall area and luminal area at the trunk of the apical bronchus of the right upper lobe were quantified using HRCT and compared. The values of pulmonary function were assessed as well.
RESULTS: There were differences between HDM group and weed pollen group in WA/BSA,WA% and FEF25-75% pred, and no significant difference in FEV1%pred, FEV1/FVC and LA/BSA. In weed pollen group, WA/BSA was observed to correlate with the duration of rhinitis, whereas in HDM group, WA/BSA and LA/BSA was observed to correlate with the duration of asthma. In weed pollen group, FEV1/FVC showed a weak but significant negative correlation with WA%, but in HDM group FEV1/FVC showed a significant positive correlation with WA% and a statistical negative correlation with LA/BSA. FEV1/FVC and FEF25-75% pred were higher and WA/BSA and LA/BSA were lower in healthy control group than asthma group. FEV1%pred and WA% was no significant difference between asthma patients and healthy subjects.
CONCLUSION: There are differences between HDM mono-sensitized subjects and weed pollen mono-sensitized subjects, not only in airway wall thickness, but also small airway obstruction.

PMID: 25524508 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

The global impact of non-communicable diseases on households and impoverishment: a systematic review.

Eur J Epidemiol. 2014 Dec 21;

Authors: Jaspers L, Colpani V, Chaker L, van der Lee SJ, Muka T, Imo D, Mendis S, Chowdhury R, Bramer WM, Falla A, Pazoki R, Franco OH

Abstract
The global economic impact of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) on household expenditures and poverty indicators remains less well understood. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature evaluating the global economic impact of six NCDs [including coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), cancer (lung, colon, cervical and breast), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD)] on households and impoverishment. Medline, Embase and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to November 6th 2014. To identify additional publications, reference lists of retrieved studies were searched. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, cohorts, case-control, cross-sectional, modeling and ecological studies carried out in adults and assessing the economic consequences of NCDs on households and impoverishment. No language restrictions. All abstract and full text selection was done by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and checked by a third independent reviewer. Studies were included evaluating the impact of at least one of the selected NCDs and on at least one of the following measures: expenditure on medication, transport, co-morbidities, out-of-pocket (OOP) payments or other indirect costs; impoverishment, poverty line and catastrophic spending; household or individual financial cost. From 3,241 references, 64 studies met the inclusion criteria, 75 % of which originated from the Americas and Western Pacific WHO region. Breast cancer and DM were the most studied NCDs (42 in total); CKD and COPD were the least represented (five and three studies respectively). OOP payments and financial catastrophe, mostly defined as OOP exceeding a certain proportion of household income, were the most studied outcomes. OOP expenditure as a proportion of family income, ranged between 2 and 158 % across the different NCDs and countries. Financial catastrophe due to the selected NCDs was seen in all countries and at all income levels, and occurred in 6-84 % of the households depending on the chosen catastrophe threshold. In 16 low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), 6-11 % of the total population would be impoverished at a 1.25 US dollar/day poverty line if they would have to purchase lowest price generic diabetes medication. NCDs impose a large and growing global impact on households and impoverishment, in all continents and levels of income. The true extent, however, remains difficult to determine due to the heterogeneity across existing studies in terms of populations studied, outcomes reported and measures employed. The impact that NCDs exert on households and impoverishment is likely to be underestimated since important economic domains, such as coping strategies and the inclusion of marginalized and vulnerable people who do not seek health care due to financial reasons, are overlooked in literature. Given the scarcity of information on specific regions, further research to estimate impact of NCDs on households and impoverishment in LMIC, especially the Middle Eastern, African and Latin American regions is required.

PMID: 25527371 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Pulmonary disease is by far the most frequent disease caused by nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM). To diagnose NTM pulmonary disease (NTM-PD), patients should have symptoms and radiologic signs suggestive of NTM-PD, and cultures of multiple respiratory tract samples must grow the same NTM species. Thus, the microbiological laboratory has a central role in the diagnosis of NTM-PD. This review summarizes currently available data on techniques involved in the microbiological diagnosis of NTM-PD, and aims to provide a framework for optimal microbiological diagnosis. (Source: Clinics in Chest Medicine)