A National Strategy to Diagnose Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Invasive Fungal Disease in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Fungal coinfection is a recognized complication of respiratory virus infections, increasing morbidity and mortality, but can be readily treated if diagnosed early. An increasing number of small studies describing aspergillosis in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with severe respiratory distress are being reported, but comprehensive data are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence, risk factors, and impact of invasive fungal disease in adult COVID-19 patients with severe respiratory distress. METHODS: An evaluation of a national, multicenter, prospective cohort evaluation of an enhanced testing strategy to diagnose invasive fungal disease in COVID-19 intensive care patients. Results were used to generate a mechanism to define aspergillosis in future COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: One-hundred and thirty-five adults (median age: 57, M/F: 2.2/1) were screened. The incidence was 26.7% (14.1% aspergillosis, 12.6% yeast infections). The overall mortality rate was 38%; 53% and 31% in patients with and without fungal disease, respectively (P = .0387). The mortality rate was reduced by the use of antifungal therapy (mortality: 38.5% in patients receiving therapy vs 90% in patients not receiving therapy (P = .008). The use of corticosteroids (P = .007) and history of chronic respiratory disease (P = .05) increased the likelihood of aspergillosis. CONCLUSIONS: Fungal disease occurs frequently in critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. The survival benefit observed in patients receiving antifungal therapy implies that the proposed diagnostic and defining criteria are appropriate. Screening using a strategic diagnostic approach and antifungal prophylaxis of patients with risk factors will likely enhance the management of COVID-19 patients.

The protective effect of previous COVID-19 infection in a high-prevalence hospital setting.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the protective effect of previous COVID-19 infection for healthcare workers in a high-prevalence setting. METHOD: The COVID-19 antibody and PCR results of 538 healthcare workers on wards with COVID-19 outbreaks from 1 March 2020 to 31 July 2020 were evaluated. Infection rates of the 'previously infected' and 'no evidence of previous infection' groups were compared during second-wave outbreaks between 29 September 2020 and 20 November 2020. RESULTS: One out of 115 individuals previously infected developed infection compared with 104 out of 423 individuals with no evidence of previous infection. Attack rates in staff previously infected was reduced significantly from 24.59% to 0.87% (odds ratio 0.027, 95% CI 0.004-0.195, p<0.001) when compared to the 'no evidence of previous infection' group with the same exposure risk. CONCLUSION: Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection offers significant protection against reinfection and this protection lasts 4 months for the majority of individuals.

The impact of false positive COVID-19 results in an area of low prevalence.

False negative results in COVID-19 testing are well recognised and frequently discussed. False positive results, while less common and less frequently discussed, still have several adverse implications, including potential exposure of a non-infected person to the virus in a cohorted area. Although false positive results are proportionally greater in low prevalence settings, the consequences are significant at all times and potentially of greater significance in high-prevalence settings. We evaluated COVID-19 results in one area during a period of low prevalence. The consequences of these results are discussed and implications for these results in both high and low prevalence settings are considered. We also provide recommendations to minimise the risk and impact of false-positive results.

The clinical sensitivity of a single SARS-CoV-2 upper respiratory tract RT-PCR test for diagnosing COVID-19 using convalescent antibody as a comparator.

The clinical false negative rate of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 on a single upper respiratory tract sample was calculated using convalescent antibody testing as a comparator. The sensitivity in symptomatic individuals was 86.2% (25/29). Of the missed cases, one (3.5%) was detected by repeat RT-PCR, one by CT thorax and two (7.1%) by convalescent antibody. The clinical false negative rate of a single RT-PCR on an upper respiratory tract sample of 14% in symptomatic patients is reassuring when compared to early reports. This report supports a strategy of combining repeat swabbing, use of acute and convalescent antibody testing and CT thorax for COVID-19 diagnosis.