The battle against fungi: lessons in antifungal stewardship from COVID 19 times

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the detrimental effect of secondary pathogens in patients with a primary viral insult. In addition to superinfections with bacterial pathogens, invasive fungal infections were increasingly reported. The diagnosis of pulmonary fungal infections has always been challenging; however, it became even more problematic in the setting of COVID-19, particularly regarding the interpretation of radiological findings and mycology test results in patients with these infections. Moreover, prolonged hospitalization in ICU, coupled with underlying host factors. such as preexisting immunosuppression, use of immunomodulatory agents, and pulmonary compromise, caused additional vulnerability to fungal infections in this patient population. In addition, the heavy workload, redeployment of untrained staff, and inconsistent supply of gloves, gowns, and masks during the COVID-19 outbreak made it harder for healthcare workers to strictly adhere to preventive measures for infection control. Taken together, these factors favored patient-to-patient spread of fungal infections, such as those caused by Candida auris, or environment-to-patient transmission, including nosocomial aspergillosis. As fungal infections were associated with increased morbidity and mortality, empirical treatment was overly used and abused in COVID-19-infected patients, potentially contributing to increased resistance in fungal pathogens. The aim of this paper was to focus on essential elements of antifungal stewardship in COVID-19 for three fungal infections, COVID-19-associated candidemia (CAC), -pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA), and -mucormycosis (CAM).

Macro Level Influences on Strategic Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic - A Tool for National Assessments (preprint)

Background: Variation in the approaches taken to contain the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic at country level has been shaped by economic and political considerations, technical capacity, and assumptions about public behaviours. To address the limited application of learning from previous pandemics, this study aimed to analyse perceived facilitators and inhibitors during the pandemic and to inform the development of an assessment tool for pandemic response planning.Methods: A cross-sectional electronic survey of health and non-healthcare professionals (5 May - 5 June 2020) in six languages, with respondents recruited via email, social media and website posting. Participants were asked to score inhibitors (-10 to 0) or facilitators (0 to +10) impacting country response to COVID-19 from the following domains – Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Ecological, Legislative, and wider Industry (the PESTELI framework). Participants were then asked to explain their responses using free text. Descriptive and thematic analysis was followed by triangulation with the literature and expert validation to develop the assessment tool, which was then compared with four existing pandemic planning frameworks.Findings: 928 respondents from 66 countries (57% healthcare professionals) participated. Political and economic influences were consistently perceived as powerful negative forces and technology as a facilitator across high- and low-income countries. The 103-item tool developed for guiding rapid situational assessment for pandemic planning is comprehensive when compared to existing tools and highlights the interconnectedness of the 7 domains.Interpretation: The tool developed and proposed addresses the problems associated with decision making in disciplinary silos and offers a means to refine future use of epidemic modelling.Funding Statement: This study did not receive any external funding.Declaration of Interests: None to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by the Joint Research Compliance Office, Imperial College London (ICREC reference: 20IC5947).