Post on 26-Dec-2015
Theory of Airborne Infections Transmission Control
InterventionsImpact of Treatment
Edward A. Nardell, MDAssociate Professor
Harvard Medical SchoolHarvard School of Public Health
Hospitals as Causes of Human Suffering Referring to the Hotel-Dieu in Paris which had a mortality rate of 1 in 4 patients
“A fragment of space closed on itself, a place of internment of men and disease, its ceremonious but inept architecture multiplying the ills of its interior without preventing their outward diffusion, the hospital is more of a centre of death (foyer de mort) for the cities where it is sited, than a therapeutic agent for the population as a whole”
Ref: Medicine and Magnificence – British Hospital and Asylum Architecture, 1660 – 1815, by Christine Stevenson, Yale University Press, 2000, page 155
Florence Nightingale 1820-1910“Notes on Hospital Design 1859”
Airborne infections as a building-associated illnesses
Hospitals, clinics, laboratories Other indoor environments
Prisons, jails, homeless shelters, residential facilities
refugee camps, crowded outdoor environments
transportation safety: Airliner, shipboard transmission
Pine Street Inn 1984 TB Outbreak
INH & SM res
ShelterTransmission
Exogenous Reinfection
UVGI AirDisinfection
Air Filtration
Many otherInterventions
TB Resurgence - NYC (1985-92)
TB Case Cure 50%
Shelters, Jails, Hospitals
Treatment barriers
Transmission
MDR TB
HIV + HIV -
5 - 10 % / lifetime
5 - 10% / year
Tuberculosis in New York City--turning the tide
Frieden, T. R., Fujiwara, P. I., Washko, R. M., Hamburg, M. AN Engl J Med, 1995, 333:229-33
• “Epidemiologic patterns strongly suggest that the decrease in cases resulted from an interruption in the ongoing spread of M. tuberculosis infection, primarily because of better rates of completion of treatment and expanded use of directly observed therapy.
• Another contributing factor may have been efforts to reduce the spread of tuberculosis in institutional settings, such as hospitals, shelters, and jails.”
Global MDR-TB Treatment Scale Up• Estimated 500,000 new
MDR-TB cases per year– More than half result
from transmission– 2008 - 29,423 cases
reported • 7% of estimated cases• 1% treated with quality
assured drugs
• Most are treated in hospitals for first 6 months – until culture conversion
Source: Multidrug and extensively drug-resistant TB (M/XDR-TB)2010 GLOBAL REPORT ONSURVEILLANCE AND RESPONSE
Transmission: Hospitals as MDR TB Factories Tomsk, Siberia
Glemanova, et al., Bull WHO, 2007; 85:703-711.
• Studied the role of non-adherence and default on the acquisition of multidrug resistance
• Substance abuse was NOT associated with MDR-TB
• MDR-TB occurred among adherent patients who had been hospitalized,
– Odds Ratio: 6.34 for hospitalized vs. patients treated as outpatients.
Patients admitted with drug susceptible TB
- Reinfected with MDR TB
Anton Chekhov, MDShort story writer- Disliked Tomsk andTomsk disliked him!- Died of TB
TB IC Hierarchy
• Administrative controls– Said to be most effective, least expensive – “FAST” – Barrera and Nardell. Int J. Tuberc Lung
Dis, April, 2015
• Environmental controls*– Require less cooperation
• Respiratory protection– Last intervention, not against unsuspected case
TB transmission, c. 1930
Richard L. Riley & William F. Wells
Wells’ Air Centrifuge, 1931 “On Airborne Infection, Study II.
Droplets and Droplet Nuclei” W. F. Wells*. Am J Hygiene, 1934:20.
611-18. *Instructor, Sanitary Service, HSPH
In 1931 Wells developed his air centrifuge to sample bacteria from air
Droplet vs. Airborne spread Transmission within a
meter of the source
Relatively large numbers of organisms in inoculum (small incoculum may be tolerated)
Access to vulnerable site (mucosal membranes of eye, nose, mouth, trachea, etc.)
Hand washing may be effective
Transmission beyond a meter – shared breathing volume
Relatively small numbers of organisms in inoculum – virulence required
Access to vulnerable site – alveoli in the case of TB
Hand washing not effective.
Strobe photo of cough/sneeze
*NOT organism size
Particle size* & suspension in air Particle size &
deposition site 100 20 10 – upper
airway 1 - 5 – alveolar
deposition
Time to fall the height of a room 10 sec 4 min 17 min Suspended
indefinitely by room air currents
Fate of aerosolized TB 10% survive aerosolization
of those, 50% (5%) survive 6 hrs. (Loudon)
if inhaled, only 0.25 to 50% (2.5%) lodge in the lung
Particle deposition: Upper and lower respiratory
tract
TB is an infection of the alveolar macrophage
Airborne infection requirements
Pathogen must be dispersed as fine particles (1 – 5 um size) Respiratory tract – cough aerosol TB wound – water pik
Remain suspended in air Reach the alveolar level (TB)
Resistant upper respiratory tract Minute infectious dose (droplet
nucleus)
Upper room UVGI effect on measles in day schools, (Wells, Am J Hygiene, 35:97-121, 1942)
Wells/Riley Experimental TB Ward
Riley RL, Mills C, Nyka W. Aerial dissemination of tuberculosis – a two year study of contagion on a tuberculosis ward. Am J Hyg 1959; 70:185-196.
Riley RL. What nobody needs to know about airborne infection. (How It Really Happened) AJRCCM 2001; 163:7-8.
Quantitative air sampling for TB
Infectivity of ward air63 infectious particles
(120 GPs x 8 cf per day x 730 days)
= 1 infectious particle/11,000 cf
High enough to explain infection rate of nursesAvg. 30 infectious particles added per day (1.25/hr)
but the laryngeal case generated 60/hr
Other, epidemiologic investigations have estimated 13 – 240/hr
Example: TB Hospital outbreak - recovery room
Propagation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis
AerobiologyEnvironmental stresses:
Temperature and humidity
oxygen
radiation
Pathogenesis infectiondisease
Host
resistance
Source
strength
Organism
Treatment
drug resistance
number
viability Virulence
Take off Landing
Environmental FactorsRoom volumeRoom ventilation
Airborne Infection - Interventions
AerobiologyEnvironmental stresses:
Temperature and humidity
oxygen
radiation
Pathogenesisinfectiondisease
Host
resistance
Source
strength
Organism
Treatment
drug resistance
number
viability Virulence
Take off Landing
IsolationAdmin.Controls
DilutionFiltrationUVGI
ImmunizationResp Protection
Masks on patients
Treatment of latent infection
Mechanical Ventilation – theoretical limits of protection
Nardell EA, et. al. Am Rev Resp Dis 1991; 144:302-6
27/67 (40%) office workers infected over 30 days
1 secondary case Poor ventilation
1st air change removes 63%, 2nd removes 63% of what is left, etc.
Double ventilation = reduce risk by half, and so on….
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Ventilation, CFM
p
15 cfm/person
30 cfm/person
Building UsagePopulation density and distribution as a TB risk factor
Large facility:1. higher probability of infectious cases
2. more people exposed
2% risk = 98 exposed
Same 2% risk = 18 exposed, Now 80 protected = 82% risk reduction!!
10 Small facilities
Does the Building Matter? Annual Risk of Infection Among Medical Students of Universidad Peruana Cayetano
Heredia in Lima, Peru, ATS, May 20, 2002, Accinelli, Alvarez and colleagues.
• 488 students
• Pos. PPD increased from
3.5% to 45.9%
over 7 years
• 6%/yr. avg.
A
B
A
B
How Effective are Surgical Masks on Patients?How Effective are Surgical Masks on Patients?
For health care workersFor patients
Respirators
Guinea Pig Group
TST 0 TST 1 TST 2 TST 3 TST 4 Total
Intervention
0 1 10 20 5 36
Control 0 4 15 39 11 69
How Effective Are Surgical Masks on Patients?
Approx 53% Effective
Dharmadhikari AS, et. al.Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012 May 15;185(10):1104-9.
NIOSH funded
32
Slides courtesy of Dr. Norbert Ndjeka, Director, Drug Resistance and TB and HIV, MOH, South Africa
2010 – Durban, South Africa National TB Conference 33
Province Registered Patients (08)
Available Beds
Variance(Beds-Pts)
EC 797 394 -403
FS 265 75 -190
GP 601 266 -335
KZN 1,061 528 -533
LP 104 50 -54
MP 272 36 -236
NC 148 65 -83
NW 159 77 -82
WC 1,145 363 -782
RSA 4,552 1,824 -2728
Community Based Treatment
• Highly effective • e.g., Peru, Lesotho,
Cambodia, KZN, and others
• Less opportunity for institutional transmission
But, what about community transmission?
Effects of Chemotherapy on Transmission – Early Papers
• Andrews RH. Bull WHO. 1960 (Madras, India)• Crofton J. Bull IUAT. 1962 (Edinburg, Scotland)• Brooks S. Am Rev Resp Dis. 1973 (Ohio)• Riley R. Am Rev Resp Dis. 1974 (Baltimore)• Gunnels J. Am Rev Resp Dis. 1974 (Arkansas)• Rouillon A. Tubercle. 1976 (Review):
– Smear and culture correlate with infectivity only in untreated cases• Discordance between effect of treatment on culture and smear
– Evidence that smear and culture positive TB patients on therapy do not infect skin test negative close contacts.
• Menzies R. Effect of treatment on contagiousness of patients with active pulmonary tuberculosis. Infect Control Hops Epidemiol 1997; 18:582-586
The Madras Experience(Bull WHO 1966; 34:517-32)
• The first clinical trials of ambulatory TB treatment demonstrated no more household conversions after the start of treatment– Most household contacts had been exposed for
months before diagnosis and treatment– Susceptible contacts already infected– Patients no longer infectious
Effects of Chemotherapy on Transmission
• Riley and Moodie (ARRD, 1974):– studied 70 household contacts of 65 new TB
cases on domiciliary treatment (non-RIF regimen) – never hospitalized.
– A series of 6 TST results showed no transmission among 25 TST negative contacts after the start of treatment.
– Most household contacts were infected in the month or two before diagnosis and treatment .
Effects of Chemotherapy on Transmission
• Gunnels et al (ARRD 1974): – studied contacts of 155 patients sent home after 1 month of
treatment in hospital– 69 Culture neg.– 86 Culture pos
• 52 Smear and culture positive.
• No difference in infection rate among 284 contacts of culture pos cases versus 216 contacts of culture negative contacts
Effects of Chemotherapy on Transmission
• Rouillon A, Perdrizet S, Parrot R. Transmission of tubercle bacilli: The effects of chemotherapy. Tubercle 1976; 57:279-299. – Sputum smear and culture positivity correlate with
transmission before but not on therapy• Discordance between effect of treatment on culture and
smear
– Evidence that smear and culture positive TB patients on therapy do not infect close contacts.
Effects of Chemotherapy on Transmission (Rouillon)
• “There is an ever-increasing amount of evidence in support of the idea that abolition of the patient’s infectiousness – a different matter from ‘cure,’ which takes months, and from negative results of bacteriological examinations, direct and culture, which may take weeks – is very probably obtained after less than 2 weeks of treatment”.
• “These facts seem to indicate very rapid and powerful action by the drugs on infectivity…”
CDC/ATS Policy on Treatment in general hospitals, communities, and discharge
• 1969 ATS – Guidelines for the general hospital for the admission and care of tuberculosis patients.
• 1970 ATS – Bacteriologic standards for discharge of patients
• 1973 ATS – Guidelines for work for patients with tuberculosis
• 1974 CDC – Recommendation for health department supervision of tuberculosis patients
Riley Experimental TB Ward, 1956-60Am J Hyg 1959; 70:185-196.
(reprinted as “classic” Am J Epidemiol 1995; 142:3-14)
Hundreds of sentinel guinea pigs sampled the air from a 6-bed TB ward in Baltimore
TB transmission only from untreated patients - 1
• Patients selected: – strongly smear positive
– cavitary TB
• 3 of 77 patients produced 35 of 48 (73%) of GP infections that were cultured– all drug resistant M.
tuberculosis on inadequate therapy
– 4 month period of no infections when drug susceptible patients were admitted to the ward and started on treatment the same day
4 months
Riley Ward – 2nd 2-year study- included untreated patients
Relative infectivity of patients*:– Susceptible TB
• 61 Untreated (29 GPs) 100%• 29 Treated (1 GP) 2%
– Drug-resistant TB• 6 Untreated (14 GPs) 28%• 11 Treated (6 GPs) 5%
*all smear positive patients, relative to the amount of time on the ward
Riley’s conclusionsARRD 1962; 85:511-525
“The treated patients were admitted to the ward at the time treatment was initiated and were generally removed before the sputum became completely negative. Hence the decrease in infectiousness preceded the elimination of the organisms from the sputum, indicating that the effect was prompt as well as striking.”
“Drug therapy appeared to be effective in reducing the infectivity of patients with drug resistant (H, SM, PAS only) organisms, but the data do not permit detailed analysis of the problem”.
TB transmission only from untreated patients – Peru
Escombe 2008 Plos Medicine; 5:e188
– 97 HIV+ pulmonary TB patients exposed 292 guinea pigs over 505 days
• 66 cult +, 35 smear +
– 122/125 GP infections (98%) were due to 9 MDR patients
• all inadequately or delayed treatment» 108/125 infections (86%) due to 1 MDR patient
• 3 drug susceptible patients infected 1 guinea pig each» 2 had delayed treatment
» 1 had treatment stopped
Dramatic Increase in antibiotic concentration as respiratory droplets evaporate into droplet nuclei
Droplet
Droplet Nucleus
Evaporation
Drug Concentration
Ref. Loudon, et al. Am Rev Resp Dis 1969; 100:172-176.
Airborne
Sputum culture vs. GP Infection
• Sputum sample
– no evaporation
– no aerosol damage
• No host defenses
• Growth support optimized
Smear and culture positive
• Droplet nucleus
– evaporation with rising drug concentration
– aerosol damage
• Host defenses
• Innate immunity
No guinea pig infection
How effective is treatment in stopping MDR-TB transmission?
The AIR FacilityWitbank, Mpumalanga Provence, RSA
109 patients: smear +, cavitary, coughing, recently started on therapy
Guinea Pig Transmission: South Africa
# Patients/ Exp.
Duration
% guinea pigs infected
(# exposed)
Patients
# XDR (MGIT)
Pilot 26* / 4 mos 74%
(360)
3/11
Exp 1 24 / 3 mos 10%
(90)
5/10
Exp 2 15 / 2 mos 53%
(90)
2/11
Exp 3 27 / 3 mos 1%
(90)
0/21
0/27 (LPA)
Exp 4 17/ 3 mos 77%
(90)
2/10
109 patients: smear +, cavitary, coughing, recently started on therapy
* 8 different spoligotypes, but only 2 transmitted to GPs – both XDR-associated
Unsuspected, untreated TB
General Medical WardOrthopedic WardObstetrics WardPsychiatric Ward
TBDR
TBDS
Unsuspected, untreated MDR/XDR TB
All other patients on effective treatment
TB HospitalPotential for re-infection
TB
TBTBTB TB TBDR
TB
TBTBTB
TBDR
TBTB
TB
TB Triage – Rapid DR Diagnosis
Community based – on effective treatment – responding
Hospitalized patients on effective treatment - responding
Gene Xpert: TB, DS or MDR
XDRby LPA
Individual Isolation
Effect of treatment unknownNovel interventions
Complications
Smear status may notbe critical if on effective treatment
TB CARE Transmission Control Campaign:
“F-A-S-T”• Find TB cases - rapid diagnosis
• Focus on rapid molecular diagnosis – Xpert TB• Sputum smear – can also be rapid, but more limited
• Active case finding• Focus on cough surveillance at all entrance points
• Separate safely and reduce exposure• Building design and engineering• Cough hygiene and triage
• Treat effectively, based on rapid DST• Focus on rapid molecular DST – Xpert TB
FAST : Underlying Principles:
1. Most TB transmission is NOT due to known or suspected patients on effective therapy– Much of TB IC focuses on known and
suspected cases, isolation /separation, air disinfection, respiratory protection, and sputum conversion.
2. Rapid identification of unsuspected TB cases and unsuspected drug resistance are top priorities
3. Effective treatment rapidly stops TB transmission regardless of sputum smear status.
Not new, but never prioritized:
Traditional TB IC• Facility assessment
• Develop a TB IC plan
• Political will and resources
• TB IC committee
• WHO TB IC Policy
– Administrative
– Environmental
– Respiratory protection
• Assessment
– Process indicators
– HCW cases
F-A-S-T Strategy• Risk of undiagnosed TB and
undiagnosed DR TB
• Approach: F-A-S-T
• Political will and resources
• Focus on certain administrative components
– Rapid diagnosis
– Active case finding
– Exposure reduction
– Effective treatment
• Assessment
– Process indicators
– HCW cases
Ndola Central District Hospital
Lab: Xpert TB (2 hr dx TB and RMP resistance)
RX – effective treatment -> no transmission
Process indicators:1.Time from cough onset to detection2.Time from cough detection to sputum smear
or Xpert TB test3. Time from sputum receipt to result4. Time from result to effective treatment.
Twapia Clinic
AFB Smear Lab And treatment
Casualty
Filter ward:Cough Surveillance
OPD High Cost Clinic
USAID F-A-S-T Implementation Project
Ndola District, Zambia
NCDH Clinics:Cough surveillanceAnd treatment
Preliminary Results on the FAST Strategy at NIDCH*
Disease Category
Total Samples Tested
Number of Unsuspected TB
Cases Identified (%)
Number of Unsuspected MDR-TB
Cases Identified (%)
Current TB disease 42 3 (7.12)Other respiratory diseasewith previous TB history 169 40 (23.66) 3 (1.77)Other respiratory disease 850 80 (9.41) 6 (0.70)
Total 1062 120 (11.29) 12 (1.12)
*Data reflect 11 weeks of implementation, starting February 2014.
Early FAST Results, National Institute of Diseases of the Chest, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Conclusions• Airborne transmission may be the weak link in TB
propagation– Only about 1/3 of pulmonary TB patients infect close
contacts
• Very little effective treatment may tip the balance against transmission
• Sputum smear positivity correlates with infectiousness only in inadequately treated patients.
• Strong rationale for prompt diagnosis of drug resistance and prompt effective therapy– can be in the community
Continuing Communication Global Health Delivery On Line
www.GHDonline.org GHDonline/infection control
An on-line community of best practice Free, interactive Resource for documents, including these
talks On line discussion Future uses:
List consultants and contact information List contacts for past consultations