American Thoracic Society, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, European Respiratory Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Treatment of Mycobacterium abscessus pulmonary disease (MAB-PD), caused by M. abscessus subsp. abscessus, M. abscessus subsp. massiliense or M. abscessus subsp. bolletii, is challenging.We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis based on studies reporting treatment outcomes for MAB-PD to clarify treatment outcomes for MAB-PD and the impact of each drug on treatment outcomes. Treatment success was defined as culture conversion for ≥12 months while on treatment or sustained culture conversion without relapse until the end of treatment.Among 14 eligible studies, datasets from eight studies were provided and a total of 303 patients with MAB-PD were included in the analysis. The treatment success rate across all patients with MAB-PD was 45.6%. The specific treatment success rates were 33.0% for M. abscessus subsp. abscessus and 56.7% for M. abscessus subsp. massiliense. For MAB-PD overall, the use of imipenem was associated with treatment success (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.65, 95% CI 1.36–5.10). For patients with M. abscessus subsp. abscessus, the use of azithromycin (aOR 3.29, 95% CI 1.26–8.62), parenteral amikacin (aOR 1.44, 95% CI 1.05–1.99) or imipenem (aOR 7.96, 95% CI 1.52–41.6) was related to treatment success. For patients with M. abscessus subsp. massiliense, the choice among these drugs was not associated with treatment outcomes.Treatment outcomes for MAB-PD are unsatisfactory. The use of azithromycin, amikacin or imipenem was associated with better outcomes for patients with M. abscessus subsp. abscessus.

Treatment outcomes of macrolide-containing regimens are relatively poor in terms of both the treatment success and default rates. The default rate could be reduced if a thrice-weekly dosing schedule is available. Clinicians should be aware of decreased auditory function as the most common adverse event associated with macrolide-containing regimens.

Although combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema (CPFE) might be relevant to lung cancer, no comparison studies have been done. We evaluated the risk of lung cancer among CPFE patients compared to IPF and emphysema patients. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who were diagnosed as CPFE, IPF and emphysema using chest CT scans at Seoul National University Hospital from Jan 2000 to Dec 2011. Patients with CPFE were enrolled and matched (1:1:2) with IPF and emphysema patients based on the radiological criteria. The main outcome was time to diagnosis of lung cancer and evaluated with Cox-proportional hazard regression. Forty-eight CPFE, 48 IPF, and 96 emphysema patients were included in this study. Twenty-five cases of lung cancer occurred. The CPFE group had a higher risk of lung cancer (adjusted HR 4.62, 95% CI 1.58-13.55) than that of the emphysema group. Also, IPF group had a higher risk of lung cancer (adjusted HR 4.15, 95% CI 1.03-16.78) than that of emphysema group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in lung cancer risk between the CPFE and IPF group. Additionally, the CPFE group had a higher risk of lung cancer or death (adjusted HR 4.62, 95% CI 2.25-9.47) than that of the emphysema group. In conclusion, patients with CPFE and IPF had a higher risk of lung cancer than those with emphysema, although lung cancer risk was similar between CPFE and IPF.