Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes of Candidemia Associated With Severe COVID-19

IMPORTANCE: COVID-19 can cause serious illness requiring multimodal treatment and is associated with secondary infections. Studies have suggested an increased risk of fungal infections, including candidemia following severe COVID-19 though understanding of risk factors and clinical outcomes remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To describe clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors of candidemia among patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, case-control study of patients with severe COVID-19 was conducted to evaluate risk factors and clinical outcomes in patients who developed candidemia between August 2020 and August 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Chart review evaluating institutional and patient demographics, clinical and mycological characteristics, concomitant interventions (antibiotics, immunosuppressive agents, parenteral nutrition, degree of oxygen support, mechanical ventilation, surgery), treatment regimens, and outcomes (length of stay and discharge disposition) RESULTS: A total of 275 patients were enrolled in the study, including 91 patients with severe COVID-19 and subsequent candidemia and 184 with severe COVID-19 without candidemia. Most patients received antibiotics prior to candidemia episode (93%), while approximately one-quarter of patients received biologic for COVID-19. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the cases compared with the controls (68% vs 40%;p < 0.01). Candida albicans was the most common (53%), followed by C. glabrata (19%). Use of central lines, biologic, and paralytics were independent risk factors for candidemia. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Candidemia following COVID-19 infection is a concern that requires clinical consideration and patient monitoring. Risk factors for the development of candidemia in the setting of COVID-19 infection are largely consistent with traditional risk factors for candidemia in hospitalized patients.

Corticosteroid use in ARDS and its application to evolving therapeutics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review.

Data regarding the use of corticosteroids for treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are conflicting. As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic progresses, more literature supporting the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS have emerged. Glucocorticoids are proposed to attenuate the inflammatory response and prevent progression to the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS through their multiple mechanisms and anti-inflammatory properties. The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively evaluate the literature surrounding corticosteroid use in ARDS (non-COVID-19 and COVID-19) in addition to a narrative review of clinical considerations of corticosteroid use in these patient populations. OVID Medline and EMBASE were searched. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS in adult patients on mortality outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. There were 388 studies identified, 15 of which met the inclusion criteria that included a total of 8877 patients. The studies included in our review reported a mortality benefit in 6/15 (40%) studies with benefit being seen at varying time points of mortality follow-up (ICU survival, hospital, and 28 and 60 days) in the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS studies. The two non-COVID19 trials assessing lung injury score improvements found that corticosteroids led to significant improvements with corticosteroid use. The number of mechanical ventilation-free days significantly were found to be increased with the use of corticosteroids in all four studies that assessed this outcome. Corticosteroids are associated with improvements in mortality and ventilator-free days in critically ill patients with both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, and evidence suggests their use should be encouraged in these settings. However, due to substantial differences in the corticosteroid regimens utilized in these trials, questions still remain regarding the optimal corticosteroid agent, dose, and duration in patients with ARDS.

Descriptive analysis of the unwarranted continuation of antipsychotics for the management of ICU delirium during transitions of care: A multicenter evaluation across New Jersey.

PURPOSE: Nearly half of intensive care unit (ICU) patients will develop delirium. Antipsychotics are used routinely for the management of ICU delirium despite limited reliable data supporting this approach. The unwarranted continuation of antipsychotics initiated for ICU delirium is an emerging transitions of care concern, especially considering the adverse event profile of these agents. We sought to evaluate the magnitude of this issue across 6 centers in New Jersey and describe risk factors for continuation. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study examined adult ICU patients who developed ICU delirium from June 2016 to June 2018. Patients were included in the study if they received at least 3 doses of antipsychotics while in the ICU with presence of either a clinical diagnosis of delirium or a positive Confusion Assessment Method score. Patients were excluded if they were on an antipsychotic before ICU admission. RESULTS: Of the 300 patients included and initiated on antipsychotics for ICU delirium, 157 (52.3%) were continued on therapy upon transfer from the ICU to another level of inpatient care. The number of patients continued on newly initiated antipsychotics further increased to 183 (61%) upon discharge from the hospital. CONCLUSION: The continuation of antipsychotics for the management of delirium during transitions of care was a common practice across ICUs in New Jersey. Several risk factors for continuation of antipsychotics were identified. Efforts to reduce unnecessary continuation of antipsychotics at transitions of care are warranted.

Analgesia and Sedation Strategies in Mechanically Ventilated Adults with COVID-19.

Evidence-based management of analgesia and sedation in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome remains limited. Non-guideline recommended analgesic and sedative medication regimens and deeper sedation targets have been employed for patients with COVID-19 due to exaggerated analgesia and sedation requirements with extended durations of mechanical ventilation. This, coupled with a desire to minimize nurse entry into COVID-19 patient rooms, marked obesity, altered end-organ function, and evolving medication shortages, presents numerous short- and long-term challenges. Alternative analgesic and sedative agents and regimens may pose safety risks and require judicious bedside management for appropriate use. The purpose of this commentary is to provide considerations and solutions for designing safe and effective analgesia and sedation strategies for adult patients with considerable ventilator dyssynchrony and sedation requirements, such as COVID-19.