New! Sign up for our email newsletter on Substack.

What we know and don’t know about fungal meningitis outbreak

In a new perspective piece being published Online First tonight in Annals of Internal Medicine, a physician recalls lessons learned from treating patients affected by the 2002 outbreak of Exophiala (Wangiella) dermatitidis meningitis or arthritis related to contaminated, injectable coticosteroids prepared from a compounding pharmacy.

According to the author, the lessons he learned in 2002 are applicable to the current outbreak. He warns that compounding of preservative-free corticosteroids requires meticulous sterility to ensure lack of fungal contamination. Without this sterility, fungus grows aggressively.

As seen with the current cases, once injected, the fungus can travel through the body’s tissues rapidly, leading to invasive mycosis. However, the incubation period from exposure to disease could be up to six months, so exposed patients will need to be followed for a long time. While there were many people exposed to the fungus in 2002, all but one fatal case were successfully treated with voriconazole.

Treatment decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, but the author writes that evidence from the previous outbreak suggests voriconazole as the logical antifungal drug for initial treatment. Due to the aggressive and deadly nature of the disease, it is important for physicians to act decisively and early.

The author warns that these outbreaks will happen again if pharmacy societies, the FDA, and the pharmaceutical industry do not work together to regulate pharmacy compounding.

This article is free to the public at http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1384984. Author, John R. Perfect, MD. is available for interviews. He can be reached through Sarah Avery at [email protected] or 919-660-1306.


Quick Note Before You Read On.

ScienceBlog.com has no paywalls, no sponsored content, and no agenda beyond getting the science right. Every story here is written to inform, not to impress an advertiser or push a point of view.

Good science journalism takes time — reading the papers, checking the claims, finding researchers who can put findings in context. We do that work because we think it matters.

If you find this site useful, consider supporting it with a donation. Even a few dollars a month helps keep the coverage independent and free for everyone.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.