Update of European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases coronavirus disease 2019 guidelines: diagnostic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

SCOPE: Since the onset of COVID-19, several assays have been deployed for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) published the first set of guidelines on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro diagnosis in February 2022. Because the COVID-19 landscape is rapidly evolving, the relevant ESCMID guidelines panel releases an update of the previously published recommendations on diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. This update aims to delineate the best diagnostic approach for SARS-CoV-2 in different populations based on current evidence. METHODS: An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. The panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A list of clinical questions using the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, 2 panel members performed a literature search focusing on systematic reviews with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. The panel reassessed the PICOs previously defined as priority in the first set of guidelines and decided to address 49 PICO questions, because 6 of them were discarded as outdated/non-clinically relevant. The 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)-adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of recommendations (ADOLOPMENT)' evidence-to-decision framework was used to produce the guidelines. QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS: After literature search, we updated 16 PICO questions; these PICOs address the use of antigen-based assays among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with different ages, COVID-19 severity status or risk for severe COVID-19, time since the onset of symptoms/contact with an infectious case, and finally, types of biomaterials used.

Incidence of bloodstream infections due to multidrug-resistant pathogens in ordinary wards and intensive care units before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a real-life, retrospective observational study.

PURPOSE: SARS-COV-2 pandemic led to antibiotic overprescription and unprecedented stress on healthcare systems worldwide. Knowing the comparative incident risk of bloodstream infection due to multidrug-resistant pathogens in COVID ordinary wards and intensive care-units may give insights into the impact of COVID-19 on antimicrobial resistance. METHODS: Single-center observational data extracted from a computerized dataset were used to identify all patients who underwent blood cultures from January 1, 2018 to May 15, 2021. Pathogen-specific incidence rates were compared according to the time of admission, patient's COVID status and ward type. RESULTS: Among 14,884 patients for whom at least one blood culture was obtained, a total of 2534 were diagnosed with HA-BSI. Compared to both pre-pandemic and COVID-negative wards, HA-BSI due to S. aureus and Acinetobacter spp. (respectively 0.3 [95% CI 0.21-0.32] and 0.11 [0.08-0.16] new infections per 100 patient-days) showed significantly higher incidence rates, peaking in the COVID-ICU setting. Conversely, E. coli incident risk was 48% lower in COVID-positive vs COVID-negative settings (IRR 0.53 [0.34-0.77]). Among COVID + patients, 48% (n = 38/79) of S. aureus isolates were resistant to methicillin and 40% (n = 10/25) of K. pneumoniae isolates were resistant to carbapenems. CONCLUSIONS: The data presented here indicate that the spectrum of pathogens causing BSI in ordinary wards and intensive care units varied during the pandemic, with the greatest shift experienced by COVID-ICUs. Antimicrobial resistance of selected high-priority bacteria was high in COVID positive settings.

Performance of point-of care molecular and antigen-based tests for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Molecular and antigen point-of-care tests (POCTs) have augmented our ability to rapidly identify and manage SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, their clinical performance varies among individual studies. OBJECTIVES: The evaluation of the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 cases compared with that of laboratory-based RT-PCR in real-life settings. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 study register, and COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed or preprint observational studies or randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of commercially available antigen and/or molecular POCTs for SARS-CoV-2, including multiplex PCR panels, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, with Emergency Use Authorization, and/or marked with Conformitè Europëenne from European Commission/European Union. PARTICIPANTS: Close contacts and/or patients with symptomatic and/or asymptomatic confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 infection of any age. TEST/S: Molecular and/or antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 POCTs. REFERENCE STANDARD: Laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Eligible studies were subjected to quality-control and risk-of-bias assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Summary sensitivities and specificities with their 95% CIs were estimated using a bivariate model. Subgroup analysis was performed when at least three studies informed the outcome. RESULTS: A total of 123 eligible publications (97 and 26 studies assessing antigen-based and molecular POCTs, respectively) were retrieved from 4674 initial records. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for 13 molecular-based POCTs were 92.8% (95% CI, 88.9-95.4%) and 97.6% (95% CI, 96.6-98.3%), respectively. The sensitivity of antigen-based POCTs pooled from 138 individual evaluations was considerably lower than that of molecular POCTs; the pooled sensitivity and specificity rates were 70.6% (95% CI, 67.2-73.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI, 98.5-99.2%), respectively. DISCUSSION: Further studies are needed to evaluate the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in underrepresented patient subgroups and different respiratory samples.

SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Results to Infer Active or Non-Active Virus Replication Status in COVID-19 Patients.

We used nasopharyngeal swab samples of patients with a symptomatic (n = 82) or asymptomatic (n = 20) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis to assess the ability of antigen detection tests to infer active (potentially transmissible) or inactive (potentially non-transmissible) infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Using the subgenomic RNA (sgRNA) as an active replication marker of SARS-CoV-2, 48 (76.2%), 56 (88.9%), and 63 (100%) of 63 samples with sgRNA positive results tested positive with the SD BIOSENSOR STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag (Standard Q), the SD BIOSENSOR STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA (Standard F), or the Fujirebio LUMIPULSE G SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Lumipulse) assay, respectively. Conversely, 37 (94.9%), 29 (74.4%), and 7 (17.9%) of 39 samples with sgRNA negative results tested negative with Standard Q, Standard F, or Lumipulse, respectively. Stratifying results by the number of days of symptoms before testing revealed that most antigen positive/sgRNA positive results were among samples tested at 2-7 days regardless of the assay used. Conversely, most antigen negative/sgRNA negative results were among samples tested at 16-30 days only when Standard Q or Standard F were used. In conclusion, based on our findings, a negative antigen test, especially with the Lumipulse assay, or a positive antigen test, especially with the Standard F assay, may suggest, respectively, the absence or presence of replication-competent SARS-CoV-2.

ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines: diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2.

SCOPE: The objective of these guidelines is to identify the most appropriate diagnostic test and/or diagnostic approach for SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations are intended to provide guidance to clinicians, clinical microbiologists, other health care personnel, and decision makers. METHODS: An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair and the remaining selected with an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search focusing on systematic reviews, with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. Quality of evidence assessment was based on the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation - adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of recommendations) approach. RECOMMENDATIONS: A total of 43 PICO questions were selected that involve the following types of populations: (a) patients with signs and symptoms of COVID-19; (b) travellers, healthcare workers, and other individuals at risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2; (c) asymptomatic individuals, and (d) close contacts of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. The type of diagnostic test (commercial rapid nucleic acid amplification tests and rapid antigen detection), biomaterial, time since onset of symptoms/contact with an infectious case, age, disease severity, and risk of developing severe disease are also taken into consideration.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Bacterial Pneumonia in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 Using a Multiplex PCR Assay: A Large Italian Hospital's Five-Month Experience.

Bacterial pneumonia is a challenging coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) complication for intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians. Upon its implementation, the FilmArray pneumonia plus (FA-PP) panel's practicability for both the diagnosis and antimicrobial therapy management of bacterial pneumonia was assessed in ICU patients with COVID-19. Respiratory samples were collected from patients who were mechanically ventilated at the time bacterial etiology and antimicrobial resistance were determined using both standard-of-care (culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing [AST]) and FA-PP panel testing methods. Changes to targeted and/or appropriate antimicrobial therapy were reviewed. We tested 212 samples from 150 patients suspected of bacterial pneumonia. Etiologically, 120 samples were positive by both methods, two samples were culture positive but FA-PP negative (i.e., negative for on-panel organisms), and 90 were negative by both methods. FA-PP detected no culture-growing organisms (mostly Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa) in 19 of 120 samples or antimicrobial resistance genes in two culture-negative samples for S. aureus organisms. Fifty-nine (27.8%) of 212 samples were from empirically treated patients. Antibiotics were discontinued in 5 (33.3%) of 15 patients with FA-PP-negative samples and were escalated/deescalated in 39 (88.6%) of 44 patients with FA-PP-positive samples. Overall, antibiotics were initiated in 87 (72.5%) of 120 pneumonia episodes and were not administered in 80 (87.0%) of 92 nonpneumonia episodes. Antimicrobial-resistant organisms caused 78 (60.0%) of 120 episodes. Excluding 19 colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii episodes, AST confirmed appropriate antibiotic receipt in 101 (84.2%) of 120 episodes for one or more FA-PP-detected organisms. Compared to standard-of-care testing, the FA-PP panel may be of great value in the management of COVID-19 patients at risk of developing bacterial pneumonia in the ICU. IMPORTANCE Since bacterial pneumonia is relatively frequent, suspicion of it in COVID-19 patients may prompt ICU clinicians to overuse (broad-spectrum) antibiotics, particularly when empirical antibiotics do not cover the suspected pathogen. We showed that a PCR-based, culture-independent laboratory assay allows not only accurate diagnosis but also streamlining of antimicrobial therapy for bacterial pneumonia episodes. We report on the actual implementation of rapid diagnostics and its real-life impact on patient treatment, which is a gain over previously published studies on the topic. A better understanding of the role of that or similar PCR assays in routine ICU practice may lead us to appreciate the effectiveness of their implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Risk Factors for Mortality in Adult COVID-19 Patients Who Develop Bloodstream Infections Mostly Caused by Antimicrobial-Resistant Organisms: Analysis at a Large Teaching Hospital in Italy.

The aim of this study was to characterize COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2-infected) patients who develop bloodstream infection (BSI) and to assess risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality. We conducted a retrospective observational study of adult patients admitted for ≥48 h to a large Central Italy hospital for COVID-19 (1 March to 31 May 2020) who had or had not survived at discharge. We included only patients having blood cultures drawn or other inclusion criteria satisfied. Kaplan-Meier survival or Cox regression analyses were performed of 293 COVID-19 patients studied, 46 patients (15.7%) had a hospital-acquired clinically relevant BSI secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection, accounting for 58 episodes (49 monomicrobial and 9 polymicrobial) in total. Twelve episodes (20.7%) occurred at day 3 of hospital admission. Sixty-nine species were isolated, including Staphylococcus aureus (32.8%), Enterobacterales (20.7%), Enterococcus faecalis (17.2%), Candida (13.8%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (10.3%). Of 69 isolates, 27 (39.1%) were multidrug-resistant organisms. Twelve (54.5%) of 22 patients for whom empirical antimicrobial therapy was inappropriate were infected by a multidrug-resistant organism. Of 46 patients, 26 (56.5%) survived and 20 (43.5%) died. Exploring variables for association with in-hospital mortality identified > 75-year age (HR 2.97, 95% CI 1.15-7.68, p = 0.02), septic shock (HR 6.55, 95% CI 2.36-18.23, p < 0.001) and BSI onset ≤ 3 days (HR 4.68, 95% CI 1.40-15.63, p = 0.01) as risk factors independently associated with death. In our hospital, mortality among COVID-19 patients with BSI was high. While continued vigilance against these infections is essential, identification of risk factors for mortality may help to reduce fatal outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Hand hygiene and facemask use to prevent droplet-transmitted viral diseases during air travel: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Transmission of viral diseases (e.g., influenza A H1N1) via respiratory droplets takes place mainly in confined spaces, including in aircraft during commercial air travel. The adoption of hygiene measures may help to prevent disease spread aboard aircraft. This review summarizes the evidence on hand hygiene and the use of facemasks as viral disease prevention measures in aircraft. METHODS: A literature search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to 10 June 2020, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. A population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) approach was used to define the review question. RESULTS: We included four studies published between 2007 and 2020, all targeting influenza virus disease, in the qualitative synthesis. Three studies used mathematical models to simulate single- or multiple-direction flights, and two of them showed that facemask (e.g., N95 respirator) use considerably reduced infection probability. In the third study, hand cleaning by 20 to 60% of people at any time in all airports (including on aircraft) reduced the measure of airports' power to spread the disease across the globe by ~ 24 to 69%. The fourth study was a case-control study designed to trace an influenza outbreak in two flights during the 2009 influenza A H1N1 pandemic. The study showed that none (0%) of nine infected passengers compared to 15 (47%) of 32 healthy control passengers in the aircraft cabin during one of these flights wore a facemask (odds ratio, 0.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-0.7). In contrast, both case and control passengers appeared to be equally compliant in self-assessed hand hygiene. CONCLUSIONS: Facemask use combined with hand hygiene may minimize the chance of droplet-transmitted virus spread by air travelers. Thus, it is necessary that hygiene measures become an integral part of standard procedures in commercial air travel.

SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection to Expand Testing Capacity for COVID-19: Results from a Hospital Emergency Department Testing Site.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection has currently expanded the testing capacity for COVID-19, which yet relies on the SARS-CoV-2 RNA RT-PCR amplification. OBJECTIVES: To report on a COVID-19 testing algorithm from a tertiary care hospital emergency department (ED) that combines both antigen (performed on the ED) and RT-PCR (performed outside the ED) testing. METHODS: Between December 2020 and January 2021, in a priori designated, spatially separated COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 ED areas, respectively, symptomatic or asymptomatic patients received SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing on nasopharyngeal swab samples. Antigen results were promptly accessible to guide subsequent, outside performed confirmatory (RT-PCR) testing. RESULTS: Overall, 1083 (100%) of 1083 samples in the COVID-19 area and 1815 (49.4%) of 3670 samples in the non-COVID-19 area had antigen results that required confirmation by RT-PCR. Antigen positivity rates were 12.4% (134/1083) and 3.7% (66/1815), respectively. Compared to RT-PCR testing results, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of antigen testing were, respectively, 68.0%, 98.3%, 88.8%, and 94.1% in the COVID-19 area, and 41.9%, 97.3%, 27.3%, and 98.6% in non-COVID-19 area. Practically, RT-PCR tests were avoided in 50.6% (1855/3670) of non-COVID-19 area samples (all antigen negative) from patients who, otherwise, would have needed antigen result confirmation. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm had value to preserve RT-PCR from avoidable usage and, importantly, to save time, which translated into a timely RT-PCR result availability in the COVID-19 area.

Staphylococcus aureus ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients with COVID-19: clinical features and potential inference with lung dysbiosis.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and requiring mechanical ventilation are at risk of ventilator-associated bacterial infections secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study aimed to investigate clinical features of Staphylococcus aureus ventilator-associated pneumonia (SA-VAP) and, if bronchoalveolar lavage samples were available, lung bacterial community features in ICU patients with or without COVID-19. METHODS: We prospectively included hospitalized patients with COVID-19 across two medical ICUs of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS (Rome, Italy), who developed SA-VAP between 20 March 2020 and 30 October 2020 (thereafter referred to as cases). After 1:2 matching based on the simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II) and the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, cases were compared with SA-VAP patients without COVID-19 (controls). Clinical, microbiological, and lung microbiota data were analyzed. RESULTS: We studied two groups of patients (40 COVID-19 and 80 non-COVID-19). COVID-19 patients had a higher rate of late-onset (87.5% versus 63.8%; p = 0.01), methicillin-resistant (65.0% vs 27.5%; p < 0.01) or bacteremic (47.5% vs 6.3%; p < 0.01) infections compared with non-COVID-19 patients. No statistically significant differences between the patient groups were observed in ICU mortality (p = 0.12), clinical cure (p = 0.20) and microbiological eradication (p = 0.31). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, SAPS II and initial inappropriate antimicrobial therapy were independently associated with ICU mortality. Then, lung microbiota characterization in 10 COVID-19 and 16 non-COVID-19 patients revealed that the overall microbial community composition was significantly different between the patient groups (unweighted UniFrac distance, R2 0.15349; p < 0.01). Species diversity was lower in COVID-19 than in non COVID-19 patients (94.4 ± 44.9 vs 152.5 ± 41.8; p < 0.01). Interestingly, we found that S. aureus (log2 fold change, 29.5), Streptococcus anginosus subspecies anginosus (log2 fold change, 24.9), and Olsenella (log2 fold change, 25.7) were significantly enriched in the COVID-19 group compared to the non-COVID-19 group of SA-VAP patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our study population, COVID-19 seemed to significantly affect microbiological and clinical features of SA-VAP as well as to be associated with a peculiar lung microbiota composition.

Management of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has rapidly spread throughout the world since December 2019 to become a global public health emergency for the elevated deaths and hospitalizations in Intensive Care Units. The severity spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia ranges from mild to severe clinical conditions. The clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 disease is correlated with multiple factors including host characteristics (genetics, immune status, age, and general health), viral load and, above all, the host distribution of the airways and lungs of the viral receptor cells. In this review, we will briefly summarize the current knowledge of the characteristics and management of coronavirus disease 2019-pneumonia. However, other studies are needed to better understand the pathogenetic mechanisms induced by SARS-Cov-2 infection, and to evaluate the long-term consequences of the virus on the lungs.

Clinical Features of Patients with Home Isolation Sars-Cov-2 Infection: A Multicenter Retrospective Study in Southern Italy.

To describe epidemiological and clinical features of patients confirmed as having SARS-CoV-2 infection and managed in isolation at home. We performed a multicenter retrospective study enrolling all SARS-CoV-2-positive adults evaluated from 28 February to 31 May 2020 at one of nine COVID-19 Units in southern Italy: we included patients receiving care at home and those admitted to hospital. We defined patients with not-severe disease if they were asymptomatic or experienced a mild infection that did not need oxygen (O2) therapy and those with a severe infection if hospitalized and required O2 therapy. We enrolled 415 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: 77 were managed in isolation at home, 338 required hospital management. The 77 patients in home isolation were less frequently male than hospitalized patients (55% vs. 64%; <0.01) and were younger (median age 45 years (IQR:19) vs. 62 (IQR 22); p < 0.01), had a lower Charlson comorbidity index (median 0 (IQR2) vs. 6 (IQR 3); p < 0.01), and included fewer subjects with an underlying chronic disease (36% vs. 59%; p < 0.01). According to a binomial logistic regression analysis, a younger age (OR: 0.96 (95% IC: 0.94-0.98), p < 0.01) and a low Charlson comorbidity index (OR: 0.66 (95% IC: 0.54-0.83); p < 0.01) were independent factors associated with at-home management. The identification of subjects with SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be managed in home isolation is useful in clinical practice. A younger age and no comorbidities were identified as factors independently associated with home management.

Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay evaluation using clinical samples from different testing groups.

OBJECTIVES: Compared to RT-PCR, lower performance of antigen detection assays, including the Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay, may depend on specific testing scenarios. METHODS: We tested 594 nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals with COVID-19 (RT-PCR cycle threshold [Ct] values ≤ 40) or non-COVID-19 (Ct values >40) diagnoses. RT-PCR positive samples were assigned to diagnostic, screening, or monitoring groups of testing. RESULTS: With a limit of detection of 1.2 × 104 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL, Lumipulse showed positive percent agreement (PPA) of 79.9% (155/194) and negative percent agreement of 99.3% (397/400), whereas PPAs were 100% for samples with Ct values of <18 or 18-<25 and 92.5% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30. By three groups, Lumipulse showed PPA of 87.0% (60/69), 81.1% (43/53), or 72.2% (52/72), respectively, whereas PPA was 100% for samples with Ct values of <18 or 18-<25, and was 94.4, 80.0, or 100% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30, respectively. Additional testing of RT-PCR positive samples for SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic RNA showed that, by three groups, PPA was 63.8% (44/69), 62.3% (33/53), or 33.3% (24/72), respectively. PPAs dropped to 55.6, 20.0, or 41.7% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30, respectively. All 101 samples with a subgenomic RNA positive result had a Lumipulse assay's antigen positive result, whereas only 54 (58.1%) of remaining 93 samples had a Lumipulse assay's antigen positive result. CONCLUSIONS: Lumipulse assay was highly sensitive in samples with low RT-PCR Ct values, implying repeated testing to reduce consequences of false-negative results.

Confirmed or unconfirmed cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Italian patients: a retrospective analysis of clinical features.

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged as a novel etiologic agent of viral pneumonia. We aimed to compare clinical features of 165 Italian patients with laboratory confirmed or unconfirmed 2019-nCoV pneumonia. METHODS: On March 31, 2020, hospitalized patients who presented with fever and/or respiratory symptoms, exposures, and presence of lung imaging features consistent with 2019-nCoV pneumonia were included. Before admission to a hospital ward, patients underwent RT-PCR based SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in their nasopharyngeal swab samples. RESULTS: Of 165 patients studied, 119 had positive RT-PCR results and 46 were RT-PCR negative for 2 days or longer (i.e., when the last swab sample was obtained). The median age was 70 years (IQR, 58-78), and 123 (74.6%) of 165 patients had at least one comorbidity. The majority of patients (101/165, 61.2%) had a mild pneumonia, and the remaining patients (64/165, 38.8%) a severe/critical pneumonia. We did not find any substantial difference in symptoms, incubation periods, and radiographic/CT abnormalities as well as in many of the biological abnormalities recorded. However, at multivariable analysis, higher concentrations of hemoglobin (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11-1.65; P = 0.003) and lower counts of leukocytes (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.90; P < 0.001) were statistically associated with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. While mortality rates were similar, patients with confirmed diagnosis were more likely to receive antivirals (95% vs 19.6%, P < 0.001) and to develop ARDS (63% vs 37%, P = 0.003) than those with unconfirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that unconfirmed 2019-nCoV pneumonia cases may be actually COVID-19 cases and that clinicians should be cautious when managing patients with presentations compatible with COVID-19.

Pan-Echinocandin-Resistant Candida glabrata Bloodstream Infection Complicating COVID-19: A Fatal Case Report.

Coinfections with bacteria or fungi may be a frequent complication of COVID-19, but coinfections with Candida species in COVID-19 patients remain rare. We report the 53-day clinical course of a complicated type-2 diabetes patient diagnosed with COVID-19, who developed bloodstream infections initially due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, secondly due to multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, and lastly due to a possibly fatal Candida glabrata. The development of FKS-associated pan-echinocandin resistance in the C. glabrata isolated from the patient after 13 days of caspofungin treatment aggravated the situation. The patient died of septic shock shortly before the prospect of receiving potentially effective antifungal therapy. This case emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis and monitoring for antimicrobial drug-resistant coinfections to reduce their unfavorable outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Clinical Presentation of COVID-19: Case Series and Review of the Literature.

COVID-19 infection has a broad spectrum of severity ranging from an asymptomatic form to a severe acute respiratory syndrome that requires mechanical ventilation. Starting with the description of our case series, we evaluated the clinical presentation and evolution of COVID-19. This article is addressed particularly to physicians caring for patients with COVID-19 in their clinical practice. The intent is to identify the subjects in whom the infection is most likely to evolve and the best methods of management in the early phase of infection to determine which patients should be hospitalized and which could be monitored at home. Asymptomatic patients should be followed to evaluate the appearance of symptoms. Patients with mild symptoms lasting more than a week, and without evidence of pneumonia, can be managed at home. Patients with evidence of pulmonary involvement, especially in patients over 60 years of age, and/or with a comorbidity, and/or with the presence of severe extrapulmonary manifestations, should be admitted to a hospital for careful clinical-laboratory monitoring.