A novel aerosol collection method shows the cough aeromicrobiome of people with tuberculosis is phylogenetically distinct from respiratory tract specimens

Background

Tuberculosis (TB), a major cause of disease and antimicrobial resistance, is spread via aerosols. Aerosols have diagnostic potential and airborne-microbes other than Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) may influence transmission. We evaluated whether PneumoniaCheck (PMC), a commercial aerosol collection device, captures MTBC and the aeromicrobiome of people with TB.

Methods

PMC was done in sputum culture-positive people (≥30 forced coughs each, n=16) pre-treatment and PMC air reservoir (bag, corresponding to upper airways) and filter (lower airways) washes underwent Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) and 16S rRNA gene sequencing (sequencing also done on sputum). In a subset (n=6), PMC microbiota (bag, filter) was compared to oral washes and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF).

Findings

54% (7/13) bags and 46% (6/14) filters were Ultra-positive. Sequencing read counts and microbial diversity did not differ across bags, filters, and sputum. However, microbial composition in bags (Sphingobium-, Corynebacterium-, Novosphingobium-enriched) and filters (Mycobacterium-, Sphingobium-, Corynebacterium-enriched) each differed vs. sputum. Furthermore, sequencing only detected Mycobacterium in bags and filters but not sputum. In the subset, bag and filter microbial diversity did not differ vs. oral washes or BALF but microbial composition differed. Bags vs. BALF were Sphingobium-enriched and Mycobacterium-, Streptococcus-, and Anaerosinus-depleted (Anaerosinus also depleted in filters vs. BALF). Compared to BALF, none of the aerosol-enriched taxa were enriched in oral washes or sputum.

Interpretation

PMC captures aerosols with Ultra-detectable MTBC and MTBC is more detectable in aerosols than sputum by sequencing. The aeromicrobiome is distinct from sputum, oral washes and BALF and contains differentially-enriched lower respiratory tract microbes.

Viral respiratory infections: a cause of community-acquired pneumonia or a predisposing factor?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A cause for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is only identified in ∼50% of cases. Nasopharyngeal PCR panels contain more viruses than previously. The problem then becomes determining the relevance of the organisms identified rather than figuring out which virus is present. This review addresses how to distinguish between viral CAP and bacterial CAP, how viral CAP predisposes to bacterial CAP and some novel antiviral treatment being conducted.

RECENT FINDINGS

The pneumonia severity index has been studied in patients with viral CAP. There are new studies using biomarkers to help determine when antimicrobial treatment is needed in CAP patients, and there is still no consensus. Newer devices are being invented in an effort to separate upper from lower respiratory organisms to make test results more relevant. Several outcome studies in patients with viral CAP are reviewed.

SUMMARY

In addition to clinical correlation, using biomarkers can be useful to distinguish viral from bacterial CAP. Outcomes in patients with a co-infection are generally worse as a viral infection may predispose someone to a bacterial pneumonia. Influenza CAP treatment may be initially accompanied with antimicrobials until a patient's diagnosis is clear (∼48-72 h). Future research is being conducted for antiviral treatment more than for influenza.

Use of an innovative and non-invasive device for virologic sampling of cough aerosols in patients with community and hospital acquired pneumonia: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

The aetiology of lower respiratory tract infections is challenging to investigate. Despite the wide array of diagnostic tools, invasive techniques, such as bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), are often required to obtain adequate specimens. PneumoniaCheckTM is a new device that collects aerosol particles from cough, allowing microbiological analyses. Up to now it has been tested only for bacteria detection, but no study has investigated its usefulness for virus identification.

METHODS

In this pilot study we included 12 consecutive patients with pneumonia. After testing cough adequacy via a peak flow meter, a sampling with PneumoniaCheckTM was collected and a BAL was performed in each patient. Microbiological analyses for virus identification were performed on each sample and concordance between the two techniques was tested (sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative predictive values), taking BAL results as reference.

RESULTS

BAL was considered adequate in 10 patients. Among them, a viral pathogen was identified by PneumoniaCheckTM 6 times, each on different samples, whereas BAL allowed to detect the presence of a virus on 7 patients (14 positivities). Overall, the specificity for PneumoniaCheckTM to detect a virus was 100%, whereas the sensitivity was 66%. When considering only herpes viruses, PneumoniaCheckTM showed a lower sensitivity, detecting a virus in 1/4 of infected patients (25%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot study PneumoniaCheckTM showed a good correlation with BAL for non-herpes virologic identification in pneumonia patients, providing excellent specificity. Further studies on larger population are needed to confirm these results and define its place in the panorama of rapid diagnostic tests for lower respiratory tract infections.

Ability of device to collect bacteria from cough aerosols generated by adults with cystic fibrosis

Background: Identifying lung pathogens and acute spikes in lung counts remain a challenge in the treatment of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). Bacteria from the deep lung may be sampled from aerosols produced during coughing. Methods: A new device was used to collect and measure bacteria levels from cough aerosols of patients with CF. Sputum and oral specimens were also collected and measured for comparison. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Streptococcus mitis were detected in specimens using Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) molecular assays. Results: Twenty adult patients with CF and 10 healthy controls participated. CF related bacteria (CFRB) were detected in 13/20 (65%) cough specimens versus 15/15 (100%) sputum specimens. Commensal S. mitis was present in 0/17 (0%, p=0.0002) cough specimens and 13/14 (93%) sputum samples. In normal controls, no bacteria were collected in cough specimens but 4/10 (40%) oral specimens were positive for CFRB. Conclusions: Non-invasive cough aerosol collection may detect lower respiratory pathogens in CF patients, with similar specificity and sensitivity to rates detected by BAL, without contamination by oral CFRB or commensal bacteria.