Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients with macrolide-resistant Mycobacterium avium complex pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Youngmok Park, Eun Hye Lee, Inkyung Jung, Goeun Park, Young Ae Kang

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Macrolide is a key drug in the treatment of Mycobacterium avium complex pulmonary disease (MAC-PD). Macrolide-resistant MAC is gaining importance, but there are little data in clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of macrolide-resistant MAC-PD (MR-MAC-PD). Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies reporting clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients with MR-MAC-PD. Risk of bias was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Nine studies (seven retrospective and two prospective) comprising 319 patients were identified through a database search. Around 73% were women, and 52% had the fibrocavitary form. Pooled sputum culture conversion rate after combined multiple antibiotics or surgical resection was 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14-30%), and the one-year all-cause mortality was 10% (95% CI, 5-20%). There was no significant difference in treatment outcomes between nodular bronchiectatic and fibrocavitary types. Conclusions: Even combination therapy with fluoroquinolone, aminoglycoside, and surgical resection, the treatment outcomes of MR-MAC-PD were poor. The investigation of new treatment modalities is urgent.

Original languageEnglish
Article number286
JournalRespiratory research
Volume20
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Dec 18

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Author(s).

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients with macrolide-resistant Mycobacterium avium complex pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this