Evidence Hub

Adjunctive Diagnosis of Mycobacterium gordonae Pneumonia by Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in an Immunocompetent Patient: A Case Report and Literature Review

Shengqiao Shi, Wei Gai, Hui Huang, Ya-Feng Zheng, Xiao-Jing Zhang, Yuan-Rong Dai, Chengyu Wu

Infection and Drug Resistance, 2024

1 citation

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Mycobacterium gordonae is a nonpathogenic pathogen commonly found in nature and is generally considered a contaminant in clinical practice. Although there have been few reported cases of infection, most of them are secondary to immunosuppression. This paper described a rare case of globular shadow in the chest of an immunocompetent male who was diagnosed with M. gordonae pulmonary disease. He went to the hospital with chest pains that had lasted for more than two weeks. The routine clinical pathogen detection failed to discover the cause of the infection. Although metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) of the lung tissue was negative, M. gordonae was detected in the background microorganism with only one read. Based on the pathological results, it was considered to be the causative pathogen. Two months of treatment with rifampicin, ethambutol, clarithromycin, and levofloxacin resulted in significant reduction and absorption of lung lesions. No abnormalities were detected in either lung one year later. The lack of positive culture and other conventional microbiological test results make this case is not a strictly confirmed case. This study also explored the clinical features and treatment options of 32 cases of M. gordonae pulmonary disease through a systematic review of the literature. Although there is no standard recommended treatment regimen for M. gordonae infection, but combination therapy with macrolides, rifampicin, and ethambutol has been proven…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free