Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy for Prevention of Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: COVID-PACT.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of prophylactic full-dose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients remain uncertain. METHODS: COVID-PACT (Prevention of Arteriovenous Thrombotic Events in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients Trial) was a multicenter, 2×2 factorial, open-label, randomized-controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication in intensive care unit-level patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation or standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Absent an indication for antiplatelet therapy, patients were additionally randomly assigned to either clopidogrel or no antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the hierarchical composite of death attributable to venous or arterial thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, clinically evident deep venous thrombosis, type 1 myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolic event or acute limb ischemia, or clinically silent deep venous thrombosis, through hospital discharge or 28 days. The primary efficacy analyses included an unmatched win ratio and time-to-first event analysis while patients were on treatment. The primary safety outcome was fatal or life-threatening bleeding. The secondary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding. Recruitment was stopped early in March 2022 (≈50% planned recruitment) because of waning intensive care unit-level COVID-19 rates. RESULTS: At 34 centers in the United States, 390 patients were randomly assigned between anticoagulation strategies and 292 between antiplatelet strategies (382 and 290 in the on-treatment analyses). At randomization, 99% of patients required advanced respiratory therapy, including 15% requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; 40% required invasive ventilation during hospitalization. Comparing anticoagulation strategies, a greater proportion of wins occurred with full-dose anticoagulation (12.3%) versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (6.4%; win ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.08-3.55]; P=0.028). Results were consistent in time-to-event analysis for the primary efficacy end point (full-dose versus standard-dose incidence 19/191 [9.9%] versus 29/191 [15.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.99]; P=0.046). The primary safety end point occurred in 4 (2.1%) on full dose and in 1 (0.5%) on standard dose (P=0.19); the secondary safety end point occurred in 15 (7.9%) versus 1 (0.5%; P=0.002). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56-1.48]; P=0.70). There were no differences in the primary efficacy or safety end points with clopidogrel versus no antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19, full-dose anticoagulation, but not clopidogrel, reduced thrombotic complications with an increase in bleeding, driven primarily by transfusions in hemodynamically stable patients, and no apparent excess in mortality. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04409834.

Influence of right ventricular structure and function on hospital outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the right ventricular (RV) structure and function on the in-hospital outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection has not been rigorously investigated. OBJECTIVES: The main aim of our study was to investigate in-hospital outcomes including mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, pressor support, associated with RV dilatation, and RV systolic dysfunction in COVID-19 patients without a history of pulmonary hypertension. METHODS: It was a single academic tertiary center, retrospective cohort study of 997 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients. One hundred ninty-four of those patients did not have a history of pulmonary hypertension and underwent transthoracic echocardiography at the request of the treating physicians for clinical indications. Clinical endpoints which included mortality, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation or pressor support were abstracted from the electronic charts. RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 68+/-16 years old and 42% of the study population were females. COPD was reported in 13% of the study population, whereas asthma was 10%, and CAD was 25%. The mean BMI was 29.8+/-9.5 kg/m2. Overall mortality was 27%, 46% in ICU patients, and 9% in the rest of the cohort. There were no significant differences in co-morbidities between expired patients and the survivors. A total of 19% of patients had evidence of RV dilatation and 17% manifested decreased RV systolic function. RV dilatation or decreased RV systolic function were noted in 24% of the total study population. RV dilatation was significantly more common in expired patients (15% vs 29%, p = 0.026) and was associated with increased mortality in patients treated in the ICU (HR 2.966, 95%CI 1.067-8.243, p = 0.037), who did not need require positive pressure ventilation, IV pressor support or acute hemodialysis. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a history of pulmonary hypertension, RV dilatation is associated with a 2-fold increase in inpatient mortality and a 3-fold increase in ICU mortality.

Clinical Characteristics of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Who Have Gastrointestinal Bleeds Requiring Intervention: A Case-Control Study.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is widely recognized as a disease that affects the respiratory system, although it can also present with significant extrapulmonary symptoms. Very few studies have suggested an increased risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. This study aimed to elucidate the incidence, etiology, risk factors, and outcomes of clinically significant GI bleeding requiring endoscopic intervention in patients with COVID-19. Methods This is a case-control (1:2) retrospective analysis of all hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 infection admitted between March 1, 2020, and January 5, 2021, in which we compared patients with upper and lower GI bleeds to those without. Cases are defined as patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had a GI bleed requiring intervention while controls are defined as patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who did not have a GI bleed. Of 1002 patients admitted to the Albany Medical Center with COVID-19 infection, there were 76 confirmed cases of GI bleeding. These patients were compared to a control group composed of randomly selected patients with COVID-19 infection who were admitted to Albany Medical Center over the same time period. We assessed patients for in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days on day 28, ICU-free days on day 28, and hospital-free days on day 28. Additional information collected included demographic information, comorbid conditions, COVID-19 treatments received, endoscopy findings, endoscopic treatment received, and if the patients required a packed red blood cell transfusion. Results Out of 1007 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 76 (8%) had a GI bleed requiring endoscopic intervention. Peptic ulcer disease in the stomach or duodenum was the most common finding. The use of steroids, antiplatelet agents, and anticoagulation was not associated with an increased risk of GI bleed in COVID-19 patients. The GI bleed group required ICU care in 37% (28/76) compared with 21% (32/152) in the control group, which was statistically significant (p=0.012; chi-square test). Length of hospital stay was longer in the GI bleed group (median 16 days IQR: 8 to 29 versus 7 days, IQR:4 to 16; p<0.001, Mann Whitney test). Conclusion Length of hospital stay and ICU level of care was higher in the GI bleed group of patients with COVID-19. ICU level of care was noted to be associated with an increased risk of GI bleeding. A GI bleed in COVID-19 patients could be from the virus's direct effect on the gut mucosa or stress-induced bleeding like any other severely sick ICU patient; however, this needs to be explored in future studies.

Corticosteroid Administration Is Associated With Improved Outcome in Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2-Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical outcome of mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-related acute respiratory distress syndrome, who received corticosteroid with those who did not. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Intensive care setting. PATIENTS: All adult mechanically ventilated patients, who were admitted to the ICU between March 20, 2020, and May 10, 2020, for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cohort was divided into two groups based on corticosteroid administration. The primary outcome variable was ventilator-free days at day 28. Secondary outcome variable was ICU-free days at day 30, and hospital-free days at day 30. Consecutive 61 mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-related acute respiratory distress syndrome were analyzed. Patient in corticosteroid group as compared with noncorticosteroid group have higher 28-day ventilator-free days (mean, 10.2; median, 7 [interquartile range, 0-22.3] vs mean, 4.7; median, 0 [interquartile range, 0-11]; p = 0.01).There was no significant difference noted in secondary outcomes (ICU-free days at day 30 and hospital-free days at day 30). CONCLUSIONS: Among mechanically ventilated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-related acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, corticosteroids use was associated with significant improvement in 28-day ventilator-free days at day 28, but no significant improvement in ICU-free days at day 30, and hospital-free days at day 30.

Comparison of clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients undergoing early versus late intubation from initial hospital admission: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The true impact of intubation and mechanical ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remains controversial. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception to October 30th, 2021 for studies containing comparative data of COVID-19 patients undergoing early versus late intubation from initial hospital admission. Early intubation was defined as intubation within 48 h of hospital admission. The primary outcomes assessed were all-cause in-hospital mortality, renal replacement therapy (RRT), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) duration. RESULTS: Four cohort studies with 498 COVID-19 patients were included between February to August 2020, in which 28.6% had early intubation, and 36.0% underwent late intubation. Although the pooled hospital mortality rate was 32.1%, no significant difference in mortality rate was observed (odds ratio [OR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval 0.32-2.00; P = 0.64) among those undergoing early and late intubation. IMV duration (mean 9.62 vs. 11.77 days; P = 0.25) and RRT requirement (18.3% vs. 14.6%; OR 1.19; P = 0.59) were similar regardless of intubation timing. While age, sex, diabetes, and body mass index were comparable, patients undergoing early intubation had higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores (mean 7.00 vs. 5.17; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The timing of intubation from initial hospital admission did not significantly alter clinical outcomes during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Higher SOFA scores could explain early intubation. With the advancements in COVID-19 therapies, more research is required to determine optimal intubation time beyond the first wave of the pandemic.

Clinical Outcomes of Early Versus Late Intubation in COVID-19 Patients.

Background The implications of intubation timing in COVID-19 patients remain highly debatable due to the scarcity of available evidence. Objectives Our study aims to assess the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients undergoing early intubation compared to those undergoing late intubation. Methods This is a single-center retrospective study of adult COVID-19 patients admitted between March 1, 2020 and January 10, 2021. Early intubation was defined as intubation within 24 hours of a) hospital admission; b) respiratory status deterioration requiring FiO2 60% and higher; or c) moderate/severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) diagnosis. Results Among the 128 COVID-19 patients included, 66.4% required early intubation, and 33.6% required late intubation. The 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes of mechanical ventilation duration, hospital and ICU length of stay were equal regardless of intubation timing. Clinical characteristics, inflammatory markers, COVID-19 therapies, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and pH were comparable for both groups. Better lung compliance was observed during early intubation than late intubation based on plateau (mean 21.3 vs. 25.5 cmH2O; P < 0.01) and peak pressure (mean 24.1 vs. 27.4 cmH2O; P = 0.04). Conclusions In critically ill COVID-19 patients, the timing of intubation was not significantly associated with poor clinical outcomes in the setting of matching clinical characteristics. More research is needed to determine which subset of patients may benefit from intubation and the predictors for optimal intubation timing.

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Rhabdomyolysis in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Infection.

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of studies examining the prevalence and clinical characteristics of rhabdomyolysis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection. The purpose of this study is to examine the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection who develop rhabdomyolysis. METHODOLOGY: This is a single-center retrospective analysis of all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 admitted between March 8, 2020, and January 11, 2021. All patients with creatinine kinase (CK) levels available during the hospital admission were included. Rhabdomyolysis was defined as an elevation in CK level higher than five times the upper limit of normal (i.e., 1125 U/L). We compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who developed rhabdomyolysis with patients who did not develop rhabdomyolysis. RESULTS: The incidence of rhabdomyolysis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection was 9.2%. There was no significant difference noted in comorbidities and clinical characteristics between the two groups. Moreover, there was no significant difference noted in the presence of severe COVID-19 infection (72.7% vs 54.6%, p = 0.1), mortality (27.3% vs 23.9%, p = 0.72), acute kidney injury (59.1% vs 42.7%, p = 0.14), or need for intensive care unit (ICU) care (72.7% vs 51.4%, p = 0.051). However, a higher percentage of patients in the rhabdomyolysis group required physical rehabilitation after discharge (40.9% vs 19.3%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The overall incidence of rhabdomyolysis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection was high (9.2%). The presence of rhabdomyolysis was not associated with the increased severity of the disease. Patients with rhabdomyolysis more frequently required physical rehabilitation compared to those without rhabdomyolysis.

Pleural abnormalities in COVID-19: a narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: This narrative review aims to provide a detailed overview of pleural abnormalities in patients with coronavirus disease 19 or COVID-19. BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) is a novel beta coronavirus responsible for COVID-19. Although pulmonary parenchymal and vascular changes associated with COVID-19 are well established, pleural space abnormalities have not been the primary focus of investigations. METHODS: Narrative overview of the medical literature regarding pleural space abnormalities in COVID-19. The appropriate manuscripts were identified by searching electronic medical databases and by hand searching the bibliography of the identified papers. Pleural abnormalities on transverse and ultrasound imaging are discussed. The incidence, clinical features, pathophysiology, and fluid characteristics of pleural effusion are reviewed. Studies reporting pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum are examined to evaluate for pathogenesis and prognosis. A brief comparative analysis of pleural abnormalities among patients with COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS) has been provided. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologic pleural abnormalities are common in COVID-19, but the incidence of pleural effusion appears to be low. Pneumothorax is rare and does not independently predispose the patient to worse outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 infects the pleural space; however, whether the pleural fluid can propagate the infection is unclear.

Secondary Spontaneous Pneumothorax in a COVID-19 Recovered Patient.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease primarily affecting the lungs with a spectrum of post-viral complications. There are well-described examples of pneumonia, empyema, pneumomediastinum, and spontaneous pneumothorax cases following COVID-19 infection within the literature. However, there is insufficient evidence implicating the cause of spontaneous pneumothorax in COVID-19 recovered patients. We present a previously infected COVID-19 patient who developed a secondary spontaneous pneumothorax two weeks after recovering. A review of the literature for similar cases was limited and therefore includes a summary of recommendations. Overall, the literature establishes that pneumothorax can occur during different phases of COVID-19 in patients without a history of pulmonary disease or barotrauma and is not necessarily associated with the severity of the viral infection. As in the case of our patient, the culmination of chronic inflammatory changes and an acute exacerbation from COVID-19 further predisposed him to a secondary spontaneous pneumothorax. In summary, all cases of recovered COVID-19 patients should maintain close follow-up with their physician and seek medical attention if acute respiratory symptoms develop.

Does COVID-19 pneumonia signify secondary organizing pneumonia?: A narrative review comparing the similarities between these two distinct entities.

Multiple observational studies have described the similarities between COVID-19 pneumonia and organizing pneumonia (OP). These two entities clinically manifest with mild and subacute respiratory symptoms, often with a delayed diagnosis due to the atypical ARDS and silent hypoxemia presentation. Radiological features are often indistinguishable between the two. With the increase in antemortem lung biopsies and autopsies being performed, more histopathological findings of OP and its variant, acute fibrinous and organizing pneumonia (AFOP), are being diagnosed. These entities are known complications of viral infections as a delayed immunological process, explaining the favorable response to corticosteroids. Clinicians should be vigilant to diagnose this under-recognized entity of secondary OP in people with COVID-19 when clinical deterioration occurs, especially with compatible radiologic findings and recent cessation of corticosteroids. Despite the proven benefits of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19, treatment approaches can be more effective as OP often requires higher doses and a more prolonged therapy duration for remission and preventing relapses. The purpose of our narrative review is to compare the similarities between COVID-19 pneumonia and OP, emphasizing the clinical, radiological, and histopathological features based on the evidence available in the literature.

Narrative review of the relationship between COVID-19 and PJP: does it represent coinfection or colonization?

BACKGROUND: Pneumocystis jirovecii (P. jirovecii) is increasingly identified on lower respiratory tract specimens of COVID-19 patients. Our narrative review aims to determine whether the diagnosis of pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) in COVID-19 patients represents coinfection or colonization based on the evidence available in the literature. We also discuss the decision to treat COVID-19 patients with coinfection by PJP. METHODS: A literature search was performed through the Pubmed and Web of Science databases from inception to March 10, 2021. RESULTS: We identified 12 COVID-19 patients suspected to have PJP coinfection. All patients were critically ill and required mechanical ventilation. Many were immunosuppressed from HIV or long-term corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents. In both the HIV and non-HIV groups, severe lymphocytopenia was encountered with absolute lymphocyte and CD4+T cell count less than 900 and 200 cells/mm, respectively. The time to PJP diagnosis from the initial presentation was 7.8 (range 2-21) days. Serum lactate dehydrogenase and beta-D-glucan were elevated in those coinfected with PJP. All patients were treated with anti-PJP therapy, predominantly sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim with corticosteroids. The overall mortality rate was 41.6%, and comparable for both HIV and non-HIV groups. CONCLUSION: As the current evidence is restricted to case reports, the true incidence, risk factors, and prognosis of COVID-19 patients with PJP coinfections cannot be accurately determined. Comorbidities of poorly controlled HIV with lymphocytopenia and multiple immunosuppressive therapies are likely predisposing factors for PJP coinfection.

Blood DNA methylation and COVID-19 outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There are no prior reports that compare differentially methylated regions of DNA in blood samples from COVID-19 patients to samples collected before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic using a shared epigenotyping platform. We performed a genome-wide analysis of circulating blood DNA CpG methylation using the Infinium Human MethylationEPIC BeadChip on 124 blood samples from hospitalized COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients and compared these data with previously reported data from 39 healthy individuals collected before the pandemic. Prospective outcome measures such as COVID-19-GRAM risk-score and mortality were combined with methylation data. RESULTS: Global mean methylation levels did not differ between COVID-19 patients and healthy pre-pandemic controls. About 75% of acute illness-associated differentially methylated regions were located near gene promoter regions and were hypo-methylated in comparison with healthy pre-pandemic controls. Gene ontology analyses revealed terms associated with the immune response to viral infections and leukocyte activation; and disease ontology analyses revealed a predominance of autoimmune disorders. Among COVID-19-positive patients, worse outcomes were associated with a prevailing hyper-methylated status. Recursive feature elimination identified 77 differentially methylated positions predictive of COVID-19 severity measured by the GRAM-risk score. CONCLUSION: Our data contribute to the awareness that DNA methylation may influence the expression of genes that regulate COVID-19 progression and represent a targetable process in that setting.

Pneumothorax in critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection: Incidence, clinical characteristics and outcomes in a case control multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical features and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection who develop a pneumothorax has not been rigorously described or compared to those who do not develop a pneumothorax. PURPOSE: To determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection who developed pneumothorax. In addition, we compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients who developed a pneumothorax with those who did not develop a pneumothorax. METHODS: This study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of all adult critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection who were admitted to intensive care units in 4 tertiary care centers in the United States. RESULTS: A total of 842 critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection were analyzed, out of which 594 (71%) were mechanically ventilated. The overall incidence of pneumothorax was 85/842 (10%), and 80/594 (13%) in those who were mechanically ventilated. As compared to mechanically ventilated patients in the non-pneumothorax group, mechanically ventilated patients in the pneumothorax group had worse respiratory parameters at the time of intubation (mean PaO2:FiO2 ratio 105 vs 150, P<0.001 and static respiratory system compliance: 30ml/cmH2O vs 39ml/cmH2O, P = 0.01) and significantly higher in-hospital mortality (63% vs 49%, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The overall incidence of pneumothorax in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection was 13%. Mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection who developed pneumothorax had worse gas exchange and respiratory mechanics at the time of intubation and had a higher mortality compared to those who did not develop pneumothorax.

COVID-19 and Sarcoidosis, Readiness for Vaccination: Challenges and Opportunities.

Sarcoidosis is an immune mediated chronic inflammatory disorder that is best characterized by non-caseating granulomas found in one or more affected organs. The COVID-19 pandemic poses a challenge for clinicians caring for sarcoidosis patients who may be at increased risk of infection compared to the general population. With the recent availability of COVID-19 vaccines, it is expected that clinicians raise questions regarding efficacy and safety in sarcoidosis. However, studies examining safety and efficacy of vaccines in sarcoidosis are lacking. In this review, we examine the current literature regarding vaccination in immunocompromised populations and apply them to sarcoidosis patients. The available literature suggests that vaccines are safe and effective in patients with autoimmune disorders and in those taking immunosuppressive medications. We strongly recommend the administration of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with sarcoidosis. We also present a clinical decision algorithm to provide guidance on vaccination of sarcoidosis patients against COVID-19.

The incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of pneumothorax in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Pneumothorax has been frequently described as a complication of COVID-19 infections. OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review, we describe the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of COVID-19-related pneumothorax. METHODS: Studies were identified through MEDLINE, Pubmed, and Google Scholar databases using keywords of "COVID-19," "SARS-CoV-2," "pneumothorax," "pneumomediastinum," and "barotrauma" from January 1st, 2020 to January 30th, 2021. RESULTS: Among the nine observational studies, the incidence of pneumothorax is low at 0.3% in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, the incidence of pneumothorax increases to 12.8-23.8% in those requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) with a high mortality rate up to 100%. COVID-19-related pneumothorax tends to be unilateral and right-sided. Age, pre-existing lung diseases, and active smoking status are not shown to be risk factors. The time to pneumothorax diagnosis is around 9.0-19.6 days from admission and 5.4 days after IMV initiation. COVID-19-related pneumothoraces are associated with prolonged hospitalization, increased likelihood of ICU admission and death, especially among the elderly. CONCLUSION: COVID-19-related pneumothorax likely signify greater disease severity. With the high variability of COVID-19-related pneumothorax incidence described, a well-designed study is required to better assess the significance of COVID-19-related pneumothorax.

Incidence and risk factors for secondary pulmonary infections in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Secondary pulmonary infections (SPI) have not been well described in COVID-19 patients. Our study aims to examine the incidence and risk factors of SPI in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with pneumonia. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center study of adult COVID-19 patients with radiographic evidence of pneumonia admitted to a regional tertiary care hospital. SPI was defined as microorganisms identified on the respiratory tract with or without concurrent positive blood culture results for the same microorganism obtained at least 48 h after admission. RESULTS: Thirteen out of 244 (5%) had developed SPI during hospitalization. The median of the nadir lymphocyte count during hospitalization was significantly lower in patients with SPI as compared to those without SPI [0.4 K/uL (IQR 0.3-0.5) versus 0.6 K/uL (IQR 0.3-0.9)]. Patients with lower nadir lymphocyte had an increased risk of developing SPI with odds ratio (OR) of 1.21 (95% CI: 1.00 to 1.47, p = 0.04) per 0.1 K/uL decrement in nadir lymphocyte. The baseline median inflammatory markers of CRP [166.4 mg/L vs. 100.0 mg/L, p = 0.01] and d-dimer (18.5 mg/L vs. 1.4 mg/L, p<0.01), and peak procalcitonin (1.4 ng/mL vs. 0.3 ng/mL, p<0.01) and CRP (273.5 mg/L vs. 153.7 mg/L, p<0.01) during hospitalization were significantly higher in SPI group. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of SPI in hospitalized COVID-19 patients was 5%. Lower nadir median lymphocyte count during hospitalization was associated with an increased OR of developing SPI. The CRP and d-dimer levels on admission, and peak procalcitonin and CRP levels during hospitalization were higher in patients with SPI.

State-of-the-art review of secondary pulmonary infections in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of secondary pulmonary infections is not well described in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Understanding the incidence of secondary pulmonary infections and the associated bacterial and fungal microorganisms identified can improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This narrative review aims to determine the incidence of secondary bacterial and fungal pulmonary infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and describe the bacterial and fungal microorganisms identified. METHOD: We perform a literature search and select articles with confirmed diagnoses of secondary bacterial and fungal pulmonary infections that occur 48 h after admission, using respiratory tract cultures in hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients. We exclude articles involving co-infections defined as infections diagnosed at the time of admission by non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses, bacteria, and fungal microorganisms. RESULTS: The incidence of secondary pulmonary infections is low at 16% (4.8-42.8%) for bacterial infections and lower for fungal infections at 6.3% (0.9-33.3%) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Secondary pulmonary infections are predominantly seen in critically ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The most common bacterial microorganisms identified in the respiratory tract cultures are Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella species, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Aspergillus fumigatus is the most common microorganism identified to cause secondary fungal pulmonary infections. Other rare opportunistic infection reported such as PJP is mostly confined to small case series and case reports. The overall time to diagnose secondary bacterial and fungal pulmonary infections is 10 days (2-21 days) from initial hospitalization and 9 days (4-18 days) after ICU admission. The use of antibiotics is high at 60-100% involving the studies included in our review. CONCLUSION: The widespread use of empirical antibiotics during the current pandemic may contribute to the development of multidrug-resistant microorganisms, and antimicrobial stewardship programs are required for minimizing and de-escalating antibiotics. Due to the variation in definition across most studies, a large, well-designed study is required to determine the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of secondary pulmonary infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.