![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tuberculosis in New Zealand: poverty casts a long
shadow
Mark Thomas, Rod Ellis-Pegler
In an era concerned with the real or imagined threats from
epidemics of “new” infectious diseases such as AIDS, SARS, and
pandemic influenza, it is easy to forget the continued burden of disease caused
by that “old” infectious disease, tuberculosis.
The white plague, as it was known in the past, killed famous
names from this part of the world too. Robert Louis Stevenson (1894), Hone Heke
(1909), and Katherine Mansfield (1923) are just some of the more notable
examples.
In this issue of the New Zealand Medical Journal,
Michael Baker and his colleagues remind us, in two
articles,1,2 that tuberculosis has not gone
away but instead continues to cause disease and death—disproportionately
affecting the poor and recent immigrants.
These epidemiologic associations are not new. At the end of
the nineteenth century, New Zealand was a favoured destination for British men
with consumption, hopeful that a change in climate would improve their chances
of survival. At that time, tuberculosis was the leading cause of death in the
colony and each year killed approximately 100 of the 100,000 residents of
Auckland.3
The migration to New Zealand of Europeans with tuberculosis
during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has been followed by
subsequent waves of migrants with high rates of tuberculous infection; from the
Pacific Islands in the 1960s and 1970s, South East Asia in the 1980s, and Africa
in recent years. The inevitable result of the introduction of tuberculosis to
New Zealand by the early European settlers was transmission of the disease to
Māori, followed by high rates of disease and death in Māori in
particular.
Tuberculosis has always been a disease of poverty. Death
rates due to tuberculosis in Māori men were 10 times those of
non-Māori men as recently as the 1970s and
1980s,4 and the incidence of tuberculosis in
Māori during the last decades remains approximately 10 times that in
Europeans.1
The recent resurgence of tuberculosis in New Zealand,
fuelled by immigrants from third world countries with high rates of
infection,2 has also occurred in most other
wealthy countries. In some countries, most notably the USA where the public
health system and laboratory susceptibility testing were allowed to atrophy in
the latter part of the 20th century,
intersecting epidemics of tuberculosis and HIV infection led to explosive
outbreaks of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR TB) (defined as resistance
to at least rifampicin and isoniazid) in the most deprived members of society,
such as prison inmates and homeless
people.5
Fortunately this has not occurred in New Zealand.
Overlapping systems based on clinician and laboratory reporting of tuberculosis
have ensured relatively high notification rates. Reference laboratories in
Auckland, Hamilton, and Wellington test the susceptibility of all
Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates in New Zealand.
Initial diagnosis and antimicrobial selection is
predominantly in the hands of chest and infectious disease physicians, and a
strong public health service has provided an effective supervision of outpatient
treatments with anti tuberculous medicines. As a result, there has been only one
case of locally generated MDR TB, and overall MDR TB constitute only 0.6% of all
isolates.2 Nevertheless, MDR TB were causative
(in 2005) in 2.0% of overseas-born
cases.6
Even more serious are the recent
reports7 of extensive (the official term has
been decreed “extensive” rather than “extremely”)
drug-resistant M. tuberculosis isolates (XDR TB); bacteria which are
not only MDR TB but also have resistance to at least three of the second line
agents, viz. aminoglycosides, polypeptides, fluoroquinolones, thioamides,
cycloserine, and para-aminosalicylic acid.
XDR TB have been found throughout most of the world, and in
a recent evaluation7 constituted 4%, 19%, and
15% of MDR TB in the USA, Latvia, and South Korea respectively. Patients
infected with such variants of tuberculosis do badly.
The recent report from Kwazulu-Natal in South
Africa8 of an outbreak of 53 patients with XDR
TB and (at least in the 44 tested) HIV infection—52 of whom died within an
average of 25 days—has brought a brutal immediacy to these issues. Once
again, intercepting epidemics of tuberculosis and HIV infection with appalling
outcomes.
It is gently reassuring that there is no evidence of an
important contribution to tuberculosis in New Zealand from those coinfected with
HIV,2 but our clinical impression from
Auckland, where we treat a large cohort of those with HIV infection, is that
that may not continue to be true of 2005 and 2006 once evidence is available for
those years.
While outbreaks of tuberculosis in New Zealand usually
involve an average of 10 persons and almost exclusively occur in Pacific or
Māori communities, the recent still-evolving epidemic in Palmerston North
is atypical. There, about 1800 boys from Palmerston North Boys High School have
been evaluated after the diagnosis of infectious tuberculosis in an immigrant
boy.
Initial reports9 indicate
194 Mantoux-positive boys (i.e. ca. 11% infected), with 12 of them diagnosed as
probable tuberculous disease and being treated. The remaining 182
Mantoux-positive boys will receive chemoprophylaxis. These are both very high
infection and disease rates so there can be no rest from endless
vigilance.
Improved control of tuberculosis in New Zealand will result
from enhanced detection of infection in immigrants and a nationwide reduction in
poverty.10 The new immigration protocols
introduced late last year,11 which require
stricter migrant and visitor health screening as Das et al
outline,2 should produce a modest immediate
reduction in the burden of disease.
Given the increasing risk of reactivation of latent
tuberculous infection with increasing age, it will be decades before the full
benefits will accrue, however. Indeed, we can expect continued tuberculous
disease in recently arrived immigrants as they age over the next 30 to 40
years.
Finally, the doctor caring for a recent immigrant, Pacific,
or Māori patient with fever, respiratory symptoms, and/or weight loss
should remember the high rate of tuberculosis in such patients. Failing to
enquire about past exposure to tuberculosis, ascribing illness to other causes
of lung disease (most commonly pneumonia and asthma), and failing to request a
chest X-ray, were the most significant causes of delay in diagnosing patients
with pulmonary tuberculosis in Auckland during the late
1990s.12
Beware the recent Asian immigrant with fever and chronic
illness or even the recent Asian immigrant who is afebrile and has just a single
persistently enlarged cervical lymph node!
Author information: Mark Thomas, Infectious
Disease Physician, Rod Ellis-Pegler, Infectious Disease Physician; Infectious
Diseases Unit, Auckland City Hospital, Grafton, Auckland
Correspondence: Dr Rod Ellis-Pegler,
Department of Infectious Disease, Auckland Hospital, Private Bag 92024,
Auckland. Fax: (09) 307 4940; email: RodEP@adhb.govt.nz
References:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals |