Frequency and Significance of Coinfection in Patients with COVID-19 at Hospital Admission.

Objective Viral pneumonia is not rare in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Mixed or secondary pneumonia (coinfection) can be seen in viral pneumonia; however, its frequency in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has only been investigated in a few studies of short duration, and its significance has not been fully elucidated. We investigated the frequency and significance of co-infection in patients with COVID-19 over a 1-year study period. Methods Coinfection was investigated via multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR), culture of respiratory samples, rapid diagnostic tests, and paired sera. We used logistic regression analysis to analyze the effect of coinfection on severity at admission and Cox proportional-hazards model analysis to analyze the effect of coinfection on need for high-flow nasal cannula, invasive mandatory ventilation use, and death, respectively. Patients We retrospectively investigated 298 patients who suffered CAP due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection diagnosed by PCR and were admitted to our institution from February 2020 to January 2021. Results Primary viral pneumonia, and mixed viral and bacterial pneumonia, accounted for 90.3% and 9.7%, respectively, of COVID-19-associated CAP, with viral coinfection found in 30.5% of patients with primary viral pneumonia. Influenza virus was the most common (9.4%). Multivariable analysis showed coinfection not to be an independent factor of severity on admission, need for high-flow nasal cannula or invasive mandatory ventilation, and mortality. Conclusion Viral coinfection was common in COVID-19-associated CAP. Severity on admission, need for high-flow oxygen therapy or invasive mandatory ventilation, and mortality were not affected by coinfection.

Clinical course and findings of 14 patients with COVID-19 compared with 5 patients with conventional human coronavirus pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: To clarify what future problems must be resolved and how clinical findings of SARS-CoV-2 infection differ from those of cHCoV infection. METHODS: Patients and Methods Clinical characteristics of 14 patients with laboratory-confirmed Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 5 patients with cHCoV pneumonia admitted to our institution and treated up to March 8, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: On admission, 10 patients had pneumonia, 5 of whom had pulmonary shadows detectable only via computed tomography (CT). During hospitalization, another patient with no pulmonary shadows on admission developed pneumonia. In total, 11 (78.6%) of the 14 patients developed pneumonia, indicating its high prevalence in COVID-19. During hospitalization, the patients' symptoms spontaneously relapsed and resolved, and gastrointestinal symptoms were frequently found. C-reactive protein values showed correlation with the patients' clinical courses. Ritonavir/lopinavir were administered to 5 patients whose respiratory conditions worsened during admission, all of whom improved. However, the pneumonia in the 6 other patients improved without antivirals. None of the 14 patients died, whereas 5 other patients with cHCoV pneumonia were in respiratory failure on admission, and one patient (20%) died. CONCLUSION: Both SARS-CoV-2 and cHCoV can cause severe pneumonia. Problems for future resolution include whether antiviral agents administered in cases of mild or moderate severity can reduce the number of severe cases, and whether antivirals administered in severe cases can reduce mortality.

High incidence of false-positive results of IgG antibody against SARS-CoV-2 with rapid immunochromatographic antibody test due to human common cold coronavirus infection.

We experienced a 72-year-old man who developed laboratory-confirmed human coronavirus HKU1 pneumonia. PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 from a nasopharyngeal specimen was negative twice, and rapid immunochromatographic antibody test (RIAT) using a commercially available kit for IgM and IgG against SARS-CoV-2 showed him turning positive for IgG against SARS-CoV-2. We then performed RIAT in stored serum samples from other patients who suffered laboratory-confirmed human common cold coronaviruses (n = 6) and viruses other than coronavirus (influenza virus, n = 3; rhinovirus, n = 3; metapneumovirus, n = 1; adenovirus, n = 1) admitted until January 2019. Including the present case, four of 7 (57%) showed false-positive RIAT results due to human common cold coronaviruses infection. Two of the 4 patients showed initial negative to subsequent positive RIAT results, indicating seroconversion. RIAT was positive for IgG and IgM in viruses other than coronavirus in 2 (25.0%) and 1 (12.5%) patient. Because of high incidence of false positive RIAT results, cross antigenicity between human common cold coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2 can be considered. Results of RIAT should be interpreted in light of epidemics of human common cold coronaviruses infection. Prevalence of past SARS-CoV-2 infection may be overestimated due to high incidence of false-positive RIAT results.