Dragos Bumbacea

The risk of tuberculosis in transplant candidates and recipients: a TBNET consensus statement

Tuberculosis (TB) is a possible complication of solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The identification of candidates for preventive chemotherapy is an effective intervention to protect transplant recipients with latent infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis from progressing to active disease. The best available proxy for diagnosing latent infection with M. tuberculosis is the identification of an adaptive immune response by the tuberculin skin test or an interferon-&ggr; based ex vivo assay. Risk assessment in transplant recipients for the development of TB depends on, among other factors, the locally expected underlying prevalence of infection with M. tuberculosis in the target population. In areas of high prevalence, preventive chemotherapy for all transplant recipients may be justified without immunodiagnostic testing while in areas of medium and low prevalence, preventive chemotherapy should only be offered to candidates with positive M. tuberculosis-specific immune responses. The diagnosis of TB in transplant recipients can be challenging. Treatment of TB is often difficult due to substantial interactions between anti-TB drugs and immunosuppressive medications. This management guideline summarises current knowledge on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of TB related to solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and provides an expert consensus on questions where scientific evidence is still lacking.

Risk Assessment of Tuberculosis in Immunocompromised Patients. A TBNET Study

RATIONALE In the absence of active tuberculosis, a positive tuberculin skin test (TST) or interferon-γ release assay (IGRA) result defines latent infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, although test results may vary depending on immunodeficiency. OBJECTIVES This study compared the performance of TST and IGRAs in five different groups of immunocompromised patients, and evaluated their ability to identify those at risk for development of tuberculosis. METHODS Immunocompromised patients with HIV infection, chronic renal failure, rheumatoid arthritis, solid-organ or stem-cell transplantation, and healthy control subjects were evaluated head-to-head by the TST, QuantiFERON-TB-Gold in-tube test (ELISA), and T-SPOT.TB test (enzyme-linked immunospot) at 17 centers in 11 European countries. Development of tuberculosis was assessed during follow-up. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Frequencies of positive test results varied from 8.7 to 15.9% in HIV infection (n = 768), 25.3 to 30.6% in chronic renal failure (n = 270), 25.0% to 37.2% in rheumatoid arthritis (n = 199), 9.0 to 20.0% in solid-organ transplant recipients (n = 197), 0% to 5.8% in stem-cell transplant recipients (n = 103), and 11.2 to 15.2% in immunocompetent control subjects (n = 211). Eleven patients (10 with HIV infection and one solid-organ transplant recipient) developed tuberculosis during a median follow-up of 1.8 (interquartile range, 0.2-3.0) years. Six of the 11 patients had a negative or indeterminate test result in all three tests at the time of screening. Tuberculosis incidence was generally low, but higher in HIV-infected individuals with a positive TST (3.25 cases per 100 person-years) than with a positive ELISA (1.31 cases per 100 person-years) or enzyme-linked immunospot result (1.78 cases per 100 person-years). No cases of tuberculosis occurred in patients who received preventive chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Among immunocompromised patients evaluated in this study, progression toward tuberculosis was highest in HIV-infected individuals and was poorly predicted by TST or IGRAs. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00707317).

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone and formoterol in a single pressurized metered dose inhaler

BACKGROUND Fluticasone and formoterol are well established medications for the treatment of asthma. This study (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00734318) compares the efficacy and safety of a combination of these drugs in a single inhaler (fluticasone/formoterol) versus the individual components (fluticasone + formoterol). METHODS Patients aged ≥ 18 years (n=620) with a history of severe, persistent reversible asthma for ≥ 6 months prior to screening were included in this randomized, double-blind study, which consisted of a screening phase of up to 5 days, a 2-week run-in phase and an 8-week treatment period. RESULTS Fluticasone/formoterol (500/20 μg, b.i.d.) was at least as effective as fluticasone + formoterol (500 μg + 24 μg, b.i.d.) with respect to the primary outcome measure: there were similar increases in mean pre-morning dose forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) in these two groups. Fluticasone/formoterol (500/20 μg, b.i.d.) also demonstrated similar efficacy to fluticasone + formoterol in terms of change in mean FEV(1) from baseline pre-morning dose to 2 h post-morning dose at week 8, as well as for several secondary parameters. Fluticasone/formoterol (500/20 μg, b.i.d.) demonstrated superiority to fluticasone monotherapy (500 μg, b.i.d.) and fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 μg, b.i.d.) for several secondary efficacy parameters. Fluticasone/formoterol had a similar safety and tolerability profile to fluticasone + formoterol. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated that the fluticasone/formoterol combination is at least as effective as its components administered concurrently from separate inhalers. Fluticasone/formoterol (500/20 μg, b.i.d.) showed superior efficacy to its inhaled corticosteroid component alone and the efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol was dose-dependent for several clinically important parameters.