Risk factors associated with bacteremia in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care unit: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: This multicenter observational study was done to evaluate risk factors related to the development of BSI in patients admitted to ICU for COVID-19. METHODS: All patients with COVID-19 admitted in two COVID-19 dedicated ICUs in two different hospital between 02-2020 and 02-2021 were recruited. RESULT: 537 patients were included of whom 265 (49.3%) experienced at least one BSI. Patients who developed bacteremia had a higher SOFA score [10 (8-12) vs 9 (7-10), p < 0.001], had been intubated more frequently [95.8% vs 75%, p < 0.001] and for a median longer time [16 days (9-25) vs 8 days (5-14), p < 0.001]. Patients with BSI had a median longer ICU stay [18 days (12-31.5) vs 9 days (5-15), p < 0.001] and higher mortality [54% vs 42.3%, p < 0.001] than those who did not develop it. Development of BSI resulted in a higher SOFA score [aHR 1.08 (95% CI 1.03-1.12)] and a higher Charlson score [csAHR 1.15 (95% CI 1.05-1.25)]. CONCLUSION: A high SOFA score and a high Charlson score resulted associated with BSI's development. Conversely, immunosuppressive therapy like steroids and tocilizumab, has no role in increasing the risk of bacteremia.

Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in HIV-negative patients, a frequently overlooked problem. A case series from a large Italian center.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) still has substantial morbidity and mortality. For non-HIV patients, the course of infection is severe, and management guidelines are relatively recent. We collected all PCP cases (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria) diagnosed in HIV-negative adult inpatients in 2019-2020 at our center in northern Italy. RESULTS: Of 20 cases, nine had microbiologic evidence of probable (real-time polymerase chain reaction, RT-PCR) and 11 proven (immunofluorescence) PCP on respiratory specimens. Half were female; the median age was 71.5 years; 14 of 20 patients had hematologic malignancies, five had autoimmune/hyperinflammatory disorders, and one had a solid tumor. RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) was 24-37 for bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and 32-39 for sputum; Ct was 24-33 on BAL proven cases. Of 20 cases, four received additional diagnoses on BAL. At PCP diagnosis, all patients were not on anti-pneumocystis prophylaxis. We retrospectively assessed prophylaxis indications: 9/20 patients had a main indication, 5/9 because of prednisone treatment ≥ 20 mg (or equivalents) for ≥4 weeks. All patients underwent antimicrobial treatment according to guidelines; 18/20 with concomitant corticosteroids. A total of 4/20 patients died within 28 days from diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Despite appropriate treatment, PCP is still associated to high mortality (20%) among non-HIV patients. Strict adherence to prophylaxis guidelines, awareness of gray areas, and prompt diagnosis can help manage this frequently overlooked infection.

Short-term inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 by hydrogen peroxide in persistent nasopharyngeal carriers.

Asymptomatic and convalescent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) subjects may carry severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) for months in their upper respiratory ways. Desiring to permanently clean the mucosal surfaces, we investigated the chemical agents that fit to rapidly degrade the virus. Among these, hydrogen peroxide, initially tested by two of us for tolerability, showed both good performance and acceptable side effects (burning sensation for 15-20 s). We contacted circles of family physicians and the ATS Milano (Territorial Assistance and Prevention Service), and we tested this procedure on eight persistent carriers of SARS-CoV-2, performing swabs before the procedure and after it until the reappearance of the virus or until 14 days (the incubation period), keeping the surfaces clean with a hypertonic solution. Our patients had a median time from exposure or symptom onset of 111 days, and three had relapsed after being declared "cured" (two consecutive negative swabs after quarantine). One patient had a baseline negative swab and was excluded, and two successfully ended the 14 days' course, four suppressed viral elimination for 72 h, and one for 48 h, all rebounding to weak positive (cycle thresholds above 24). Although temporarily effective, such measures may have some place in the control of viral shedding to protect the most fragile subjects.

Early administration of lopinavir/ritonavir plus hydroxychloroquine does not alter the clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A retrospective cohort study.

As it has been shown that lopinavir (LPV) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have in vitro activity against coronaviruses, they were used to treat COVID-19 during the first wave of the epidemic in Lombardy, Italy. To compare the rate of clinical improvement between those who started LPV/ritonavir (LPV/r)+HCQ within 5 days of symptom onset (early treatment, ET) and those who started later (delayed treatment, DT). This was a retrospective intent-to-treat analysis of the hospitalized patients who started LPV/r + HCQ between 21 February and 20 March 2020. The association between the timing of treatment and the probability of 30-day mortality was assessed using univariable and multivariable logistic models. The study involved 172 patients: 43 (25%) in the ET and 129 (75%) in the DT group. The rate of clinical improvement increased over time to 73.3% on day 30, without any significant difference between the two groups (Gray's test P = .213). After adjusting for potentially relevant clinical variables, there was no significant association between the timing of the start of treatment and the probability of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] ET vs DT = 1.45, 95% confidence interval 0.50-4.19). Eight percent of the patients discontinued the treatment becausebecause of severe gastrointestinal disorders attributable to LPV/r. The timing of the start of LPV/r + HCQ treatment does not seem to affect the clinical course of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Together with the severe adverse events attributable to LPV/r, this raises concerns about the benefit of using this combination to treat COVID-19.

Drug-Drug Interactions and Prescription Appropriateness at Hospital Discharge: Experience with COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are often elderly, with comorbidities, and receiving polypharmacy, all of which are known factors for potentially severe drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and the prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the risk of DDIs and PIMs in COVID-19 patients at hospital discharge. METHOD: Patients with a proven diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection who were hospitalized between 21 February and 30 April 2020, treated with at least two drugs, and with available information regarding pharmacological treatments upon admission and at discharge were considered. The appropriateness of drug prescriptions was assessed using INTERcheck®. RESULTS: A significant increase in the prescription of proton pump inhibitors and heparins was found when comparing admission with hospital discharge (from 24 to 33% [p < 0.05] and from 1 to 17% [p < 0.01], respectively). The increased prescription of heparins at discharge resulted in a highly significant increase in the potentially severe DDIs mediated by this class of drugs. 51% of COVID-19 patients aged > 65 years had at least one PIM upon admission, with an insignificant increment at discharge (58%). CONCLUSION: An increased number of prescribed drugs was observed in COVID-19 patients discharged from our hospital. The addition of heparins is appropriate according to the current literature, while the use of proton pump inhibitors is more controversial. Particular attention should be paid to the risk of bleeding complications linked to heparin-based DDIs.

Unexpectedly High Frequency of Enterococcal Bloodstream Infections in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients Admitted to an Italian ICU: An Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the frequency of ICU-acquired bloodstream infections in coronavirus disease 2019 patients. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: The emergency expansion of an ICU from eight general beds to 30 coronavirus disease 2019 beds. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to the ICU of Luigi Sacco Hospital (Milan, Italy) for greater than or equal to 48 hours between February 21, 2020, and April 30, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The frequency of bloodstream infections per 1,000 days of ICU stay was calculated in 89 coronavirus disease 2019 patients, and the cumulative probability of bloodstream infection was estimated using death and ICU discharge as competing events. Sixty patients (67.4%) experienced at least one of the 93 recorded episodes of bloodstream infection, a frequency of 87 per 1,000 days of ICU stay (95% CI, 67-112).The patients who experienced a bloodstream infection had a higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score upon ICU admission (9.5; interquartile range, 8-12 vs 8, interquartile range, 5-10; p = 0.042), a longer median ICU stay (15 d; interquartile range, 11-23 vs 8, interquartile range, 5-12; p < 0.001), and more frequently required invasive mechanical ventilation (98.3% vs 82.8%; p = 0.013) than those who did not. The median time from ICU admission to the first bloodstream infection episode was 10 days. Gram-positive bacteria accounted for 74 episodes (79.6%), with Enterococcus species being the most prevalent (53 episodes, 55.8%). Thirty-two isolates (27.3%) showed multidrug resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Coronavirus disease 2019 seemed to increase the frequency of bloodstream infections (particularly Enterococcus-related bloodstream infection) after ICU admission. This may have been due to enteric involvement in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and/or limitations in controlling the patient-to-patient transmission of infectious agents in extremely challenging circumstances.

Off-label use of tocilizumab for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Milan, Italy.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, targets IL-6 receptors blocking downstream pro-inflammatory effects of IL-6. In preliminary reports it was suggested to be beneficial in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: In this open-label prospective study we describe clinical characteristics and outcome of 51 patients hospitalized with confirmed and severe COVID-19 pneumonia treated with tocilizumab intravenously. All patients had elevated IL-6 plasma level (>40 pg/mL) and oxygen saturation <93% in ambient air. Clinical outcomes, oxygen support, laboratory data and adverse events were collected over a follow-up of 30 days. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (88%) were on high-flow oxygen supplementation, six of whom with invasive ventilation. From baseline to day 7 after tocilizumab we observed a dramatic drop of body temperature and CRP value with a significant increase in lymphocyte count (p<0.001). Over a median follow-up time of 34 days from tocilizumab, 34 patients (67%) showed an improvement in their clinical severity class; 31 were discharged; 17 (33%) showed a worsening of their clinical status, of these 14 died (27%). The mortality rate was significantly associated with mechanical ventilation at baseline (83.3% vs 20% of patients on non-invasive oxygen support; p=0.0001). The most frequent side effects were an increase of hepatic enzymes (29%), thrombocytopenia (14%), and serious bacterial and fungal infections (27%). CONCLUSION: Tocilizumab exerts a rapidly beneficial effect on fever and inflammatory markers, although no significant impact on the clinical outcome can be inferred by our results. Critically ill patients seem to have a high risk of serious infections with this drug.