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.

Fluid-repellent surgical mask (FRSM) fit - one size does not fit all.

BACKGROUND: Fluid-repellent surgical masks (FRSMs) are recommended by the UK government for healthcare workers as personal protective equipment (PPE) against SARS-COV-2. UK Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) national guidelines states that 'masks must be well-fitting and fit for purpose, fully covering the mouth and nose'. AIM: To review the fit of the FRSM supplied to the NHS front line workers against the national IPC guidelines and, through re-audit, assess for improvements in fit with FRSM worn with a plastic strap (intervention A) and FFP3 mask (intervention B). METHOD: A three-part closed-loop audit was carried out comprising controlled observation, observation in the clinical area and questionnaire. Re-audit was carried out following interventions A and B. RESULTS: FRSMs slipped below the nose in 43% and below the mouth of 10% of participants during the controlled observation and below the nose (above or below the mouth) in 30% of staff in the clinical area. No masks slipped below the nose or mouth with intervention A or B. 86% of participants reported touching the FRSM to keep it in the correct position and 66% reported touching the FFP3. CONCLUSION: The current supply of FRSMs are poorly fitting for many users and do not meet the UK IPC guideline standard. These issues were not evident when worn with a plastic strap or with FFP3 masks.

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.

Impact of a novel community testing pathway for people with suspected COVID-19 in Wales: a cost-minimisation analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare National Health Service (NHS) organisations' testing pathways for patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community versus standard hospital testing practices. PERSPECTIVE: NHS commissioners and services. METHODS: During the containment phase of the COVID-19 pandemic we developed a community model pathway for COVID-19 testing in Wales with testing teams undertaking swabbing for COVID-19 in individuals' usual place of residence. We undertook a cost-minimisation analysis comparing the costs to the NHS in Wales of community testing for COVID-19 versus standard hospital testing practices and ambulance conveyancing. We analysed data from patients with suspected COVID-19 between January and February 2020 and applied assumptions of costs from national contractual and reference costs for ambulances, staffing and transportation with market costs at the time of publication. RESULTS: 177 patients with suspected COVID-19 underwent community testing via local NHS organisations between January and February 2020 with a mean age of 46.1 (IQR 27.5-56.3). This was 92% of total patients who were tested for COVID-19 during this period. We estimate, compared with standard hospital testing practices, cash savings in improved productivity for the NHS of £24,539 during this time period, in addition to further non-monetised benefits for hospital and ambulance flow. CONCLUSIONS: Community testing for COVID-19 in Wales is now an established pathway and continues to bring benefits for patients, local healthcare organisations and the NHS. Further application of this model in other settings and to other infectious diseases may herald promising returns.