BackgroundWhile the high burden of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) itself is a matter of great concern, the emergence and rise of advanced forms of drug-resistance such as extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) and extremely drug-resistant TB (XXDR-TB) is more troubling. The aim of this study was to investigate the trends over time of patterns of drug resistance in a sample of MDR-TB patients in greater metropolitan Mumbai, India.MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational study of drug susceptibility testing (DST) results among MDR-TB patients from eight health care facilities in greater Mumbai between 2005 and 2013. We classified resistance patterns into four categories: MDR-TB, pre-XDR-TB, XDR-TB and XXDR-TB.ResultsA total of 340 MDR-TB patients were included in the study. Pre-XDR-TB was the most common form of drug-resistant TB observed overall in this Mumbai population at 56.8% compared to 29.4% for MDR-TB. The proportion of patients with MDR-TB was 39.4% in the period 2005–2007 and 27.8% in 2011–2013, while the proportion of those with XDR-TB and XXDR-TB was changed from 6.1% and 0% respectively to 10.6% and 5.6% during the same time period. During the same periods, the proportions of patients with ofloxacin, moxifloxacin and ethionamide resistance significantly increased from 57.6% to 75.3%, from 60.0% to 69.5% and from 24.2% to 52.5% respectively (p<0.05).DiscussionThe observed trends in TB drug-resistance patterns in Mumbai highlight the need for individualized drug regimens, designed on the basis of DST results involving first- and second-line anti-TB drugs and treatment history of the patient. A drug-resistant TB case-finding strategy based on molecular techniques that identify only rifampicin resistance will lead to initiation of suboptimal treatment regimens for a significant number of patients, which may in turn contribute to amplification of resistance and transmission of strains with increasingly advanced resistance within the community.

No abstract

This expert group consensus statement emphasises the need for standardising the definition of progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases (F-ILDs), with an accurate initial diagnosis being of paramount importance in ensuring appropriate initial management. Equally, case-by-case decisions on monitoring and management are essential, given the varying presentations of F-ILDs and the varying rates of progression. The value of diagnostic tests in risk stratification at presentation and, separately, the importance of a logical monitoring strategy, tailored to manage the risk of progression, are also stressed. The term “progressive pulmonary fibrosis” (PPF) exactly describes the entity that clinicians often face in practice. The importance of using antifibrotic therapy early in PPF (once initial management has failed to prevent progression) is increasingly supported by evidence. Artificial intelligence software for high-resolution computed tomography analysis, although an exciting tool for the future, awaits validation. Guidance is provided on pulmonary rehabilitation, oxygen and the use of non-invasive ventilation focused specifically on the needs of ILD patients with progressive disease. PPF should be differentiated from acute deterioration due to drug-induced lung toxicity or other forms of acute exacerbations. Referral criteria for a lung transplant are discussed and applied to patient needs in severe diseases where transplantation is not realistic, either due to access limitations or transplantation contraindications. In conclusion, expert group consensus guidance is provided on the diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of F-ILDs with specific focus on the recognition of PPF and the management of pulmonary fibrosis progressing despite initial management.