Monoclonal antibodies for prophylaxis and therapy of respiratory syncytial virus, SARS-CoV-2, human immunodeficiency virus, rabies and bacterial infections: an update from the World Association of Infectious Diseases and Immunological Disorders and the Italian Society of Antinfective Therapy.

Monoclonal antibodies (mABs) are safe and effective proteins produced in laboratory that may be used to target a single epitope of a highly conserved protein of a virus or a bacterial pathogen. For this purpose, the epitope is selected among those that play the major role as targets for prevention of infection or tissue damage. In this paper, characteristics of the most important mABs that have been licensed and used or are in advanced stages of development for use in prophylaxis and therapy of infectious diseases are discussed. We showed that a great number of mABs effective against virus or bacterial infections have been developed, although only in a small number of cases these are licensed for use in clinical practice and have reached the market. Although some examples of therapeutic efficacy have been shown, not unlike more traditional antiviral or antibacterial treatments, their efficacy is significantly greater in prophylaxis or early post-exposure treatment. Although in many cases the use of vaccines is more effective and cost-effective than that of mABs, for many infectious diseases no vaccines have yet been developed and licensed. Furthermore, in emergency situations, like in epidemics or pandemics, the availability of mABs can be an attractive adjunct to our armament to reduce the impact. Finally, the availability of mABs against bacteria can be an important alternative, when multidrug-resistant strains are involved.

Triple combination therapy with two antivirals and monoclonal antibodies for persistent or relapsed SARS-CoV-2 infection in immunocompromised patients.

INTRODUCTION: Severely immunocompromised patients are at risk for prolonged or relapsed COVID-19 leading to increased morbidity and mortality. We aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of combination treatment in immunocompromised COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We included all immunocompromised patients with prolonged/relapsed COVID-19 treated with combination therapy with two antivirals (remdesivir plus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, or molnupiravir in case of renal failure) plus, if available, anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (Mabs), between February and October 2022. The main outcomes were virological response at day 14 (negative SARS-CoV-2 swab) and virological and clinical response (alive, asymptomatic, with negative SARS-CoV-2 swab) at day 30 and the last follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 22 patients (Omicron variant in 17/18) were included: 18 received full combination of two antivirals and Mabs and 4 received two antivirals only; in 20/22 (91%) two antivirals were nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus remdesivir. Nineteen (86%) patients had hematological malignancy, 15 (68%) had received anti-CD20 therapy. All were symptomatic; 8 (36%) required oxygen. Four patients received second course of combination treatment. Response rate at day 14, 30 and last follow-up was, respectively, 75% (15/20 evaluable), 73% (16/22) and 82% (18/22). Day 14 and 30 response rates were significantly higher when combination therapy included Mabs. Higher number of vaccine doses was associated with better final outcome. Two patients (9%) developed severe side effects: bradycardia leading to remdesivir discontinuation and myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy including two antivirals (mainly remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) and Mabs was associated with high rate of virological and clinical response in immunocompromised patients with prolonged/relapsed COVID-19.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in COVID-19 patients with haematological malignancies: a report from the EPICOVIDEHA registry.

Background: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment decreases the hospitalisation rate in immunocompetent patients with COVID-19, but data on efficacy in patients with haematological malignancy are scarce. Here, we describe the outcome of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment in a large cohort of the latter patients. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study from the multicentre EPICOVIDEHA registry (NCT04733729) on patients with haematological malignancy, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and September 2022. Patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared to those who did not. A logistic regression was run to determine factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration in our sample. Mortality between treatment groups was assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival plots after matching all the patients with a propensity score. Additionally, a Cox regression was modelled to detect factors associated with mortality in patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Findings: A total of 1859 patients were analysed, 117 (6%) were treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 1742 (94%) were treated otherwise. Of 117 patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 80% had received ≥1 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose before COVID-19 onset, 13% of which received a 2nd vaccine booster. 5% were admitted to ICU. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with the presence of extrapulmonary symptoms at COVID-19 onset, for example anosmia, fever, rhinitis, or sinusitis (aOR 2.509, 95%CI 1.448-4.347) and 2nd vaccine booster (aOR 3.624, 95%CI 1.619-8.109). Chronic pulmonary disease (aOR 0.261, 95%CI 0.093-0.732) and obesity (aOR 0.105, 95%CI 0.014-0.776) were not associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use. After propensity score matching, day-30 mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was 2%, significantly lower than in patients with SARS-CoV-2 directed treatment other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (11%, p = 0.036). No factor was observed explaining the mortality difference in patients after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration. Interpretation: Haematological malignancy patients were more likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir when reporting extrapulmonary symptoms or 2nd vaccine booster at COVID-19 onset, as opposed to chronic pulmonary disease and obesity. The mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was lower than in patients with targeted drugs other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Funding: EPICOVIDEHA has received funds from Optics COMMIT (COVID-19 Unmet Medical Needs and Associated Research Extension) COVID-19 RFP program by GILEAD Science, United States (Project 2020-8223).

External validation of unsupervised COVID-19 clinical phenotypes and their prognostic impact.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be classified into different clinical phenotypes based on their demographic, clinical, radiology, and laboratory features. We aimed to validate in an external cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients the prognostic value of a previously described phenotyping system (FEN-COVID-19) and to assess the reproducibility of phenotypes development as a secondary analysis. METHODS: Patients were classified in phenotypes A, B or C according to the severity of oxygenation impairment, inflammatory response, hemodynamic and laboratory tests according to the FEN-COVID-19 method. RESULTS: Overall, 992 patients were included in the study, and 181 (18%), 757 (76%) and 54 (6%) of them were assigned to the FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes A, B, and C, respectively. An association with mortality was observed for phenotype C vs. A (hazard ratio [HR] 3.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81-5.30, p < 0.001) and for phenotype C vs. B (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.50-3.23, p < 0.001). A non-statistically significant trend towards higher mortality was also observed for phenotype B vs. A (HR 1.41; 95% CI 0.92-2.15, p = 0.115). By means of cluster analysis, three different phenotypes were also identified in our cohort, with an overall similar gradient in terms of prognostic impact to that observed when patients were assigned to FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic impact of FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes was confirmed in our external cohort, although with less difference in mortality between phenotypes A and B than in the original study.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 can be classified into different clinical phenotypes based on their demographic, clinical, radiology, and laboratory featuresIn this study, we externally confirmed the prognostic impact of clinical phenotypes previously identified by Gutierrez-Gutierrez and colleagues in a Spanish cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the usefulness of their simplified probabilistic model for phenotypes assignmentThis could indirectly support the validity of both phenotype's development and their extrapolation to other hospitals and countries for management decisions during other possible future viral pandemics.

Outcome of early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with haematological disorders.

Outcome of early treatment of COVID-19 with antivirals or anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (MABs) in patients with haematological malignancies (HM) is unknown. A retrospective study of HM patients treated for mild/moderate COVID-19 between March 2021 and July 2022 was performed. The main composite end-point was treatment failure (severe COVID-19 or COVID-19-related death). We included 328 consecutive patients who received MABs (n = 120, 37%; sotrovimab, n = 73) or antivirals (n = 208, 63%; nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, n = 116) over a median of two days after symptoms started; 111 (33.8%) had non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL); 89 (27%) were transplant/CAR-T (chimaeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy) recipients. Most infections (n = 309, 94%) occurred during the Omicron period. Failure developed in 31 patients (9.5%). Its independent predictors were older age, fewer vaccine doses, and treatment with MABs. Rate of failure was lower in the Omicron versus the pre-Omicron period (7.8% versus 36.8%, p < 0.001). During the Omicron period, predictors of failure were age, fewer vaccine doses and diagnosis of acute myeloid leukaemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (AML/MDS). Independent predictors of longer viral shedding were age, comorbidities, hospital admission at diagnosis, NHL/CLL, treatment with MABs. COVID-19-associated mortality was 3.4% (n = 11). The mortality in those who developed severe COVID-19 after early treatment was 26% in the Omicron period. Patients with HM had a significant risk of failure of early treatment, even during the Omicron period, with high mortality rate.

Systemic and Cerebral Effects of Physiotherapy in Mechanically Ventilated Subjects.

BACKGROUND: Physiotherapy may result in better functional outcomes, shorter duration of delirium, and more ventilator-free days. The effects of physiotherapy on different subpopulations of mechanically ventilated patients on respiratory and cerebral function are still unclear. We evaluated the effect of physiotherapy on systemic gas exchange and hemodynamics as well as on cerebral oxygenation and hemodynamics in mechanically ventilated subjects with and without COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This was an observational study in critically ill subjects with and without COVID-19 who underwent protocolized physiotherapy (including respiratory and rehabilitation physiotherapy) and neuromonitoring of cerebral oxygenation and hemodynamics. PaO2 /FIO2 , PaCO2 , hemodynamics (mean arterial pressure [MAP], mm Hg; heart rate, beats/min), and cerebral physiologic parameters (noninvasive intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure using transcranial Doppler, and cerebral oxygenation using near-infrared spectroscopy) were assessed before (T0) and immediately after physiotherapy (T1). RESULTS: Thirty-one subjects were included (16 with COVID-19 and 15 without COVID-19). Physiotherapy improved PaO2 /FIO2 in the overall population (T1 = 185 [108-259] mm Hg vs T0 = 160 [97-231] mm Hg, P = .02) and in the subjects with COVID-19 (T1 = 119 [89-161] mm Hg vs T0 = 110 [81-154] mm Hg, P = .02) and decreased the PaCO2 in the COVID-19 group only (T1 = 40 [38-44] mm Hg vs T0 = 43 [38-47] mm Hg, P = .03). Physiotherapy did not affect cerebral hemodynamics, whereas increased the arterial oxygen part of hemoglobin both in the overall population (T1 = 3.1% [-1.3 to 4.9] vs T0 = 1.1% [-1.8 to 2.6], P = .007) and in the non-COVID-19 group (T1 = 3.7% [0.5-6.3] vs T0 = 0% [-2.2 to 2.8], P = .02). Heart rate was higher after physiotherapy in the overall population (T1 = 87 [75-96] beats/min vs T0 = 78 [72-92] beats/min, P = .044) and in the COVID-19 group (T1 = 87 [81-98] beats/min vs T0 = 77 [72-91] beats/min, P = .01), whereas MAP increased in the COVID-19 group only (T1 = 87 [82-83] vs T0 = 83 [76-89], P = .030). CONCLUSIONS: Protocolized physiotherapy improved gas exchange in subjects with COVID-19, whereas it improved cerebral oxygenation in non-COVID-19 subjects.

Skin manifestations in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a well established respiratory tract illness. Recent studies in adults and children have shown an increasing number of patients reporting polymorphic cutaneous manifestations during COVID-19, including different types of rashes, from maculopapular, vascular, vesicular to atypical forms. RECENT FINDINGS: Although pathogenesis of skin manifestations is still not fully understood, it has been proposed that cutaneous involvement during COVID-19 may be the results of the activation of the immune response against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, the reactivation or co-infection of herpesviruses or drug hypersensitivity. SUMMARY: According to available literature, skin manifestations in patients with COVID-19 may be categorized on the basis of their clinical presentations as follows: erythematous rashes, lesions of vascular origin, vesicular rash, urticarial rash and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), erythema multiforme and other polymorphic erythema/atypical reactions. Prompt recognition of these cutaneous manifestations represents a crucial point to facilitate diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients.

Intermediate monocytes expansion and homing markers expression in COVID-19 patients associate with kidney dysfunction.

Patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection have an overwhelming inflammatory response characterized by remarkable organs monocyte infiltration. We performed an immunophenotypic analysis on circulating monocytes in 19 COVID-19 patients in comparison with 11 naïve HIV-1 patients and 10 healthy subjects. Reduced frequency of classical monocytes and increased frequency of intermediate monocytes characterized COVID-19 patients with respect to both HIV naïve patients and healthy subjects. Intensity of C-C motif chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2) monocyte expression highly correlated with parameters of kidney dysfunction. Our data indicate that highly activated monocytes of COVID-19 patients may be pathogenically associated with the development of renal disease.

Healthcare Worker Study Cohort to Determine the Level and Durability of Cellular and Humoral Immune Responses after Two Doses of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination.

We prospectively studied immunological response against SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination among healthcare workers without (group A) and with previous infection (group B). The analyses were collected at T0 (before the BNT162b2), T1 (before the second dose), T2 and T6 (1 and 6 months after the second dose). For cellular immune response, the activation-induced cell marker assay was performed with CD4 and CD8 Spike peptide megapools expressed as Stimulation Index. For humoral immune response, we determined antibodies to Spike-1 and nucleocapsid protein. The linear mixed model compared specific times to T0. The CD4+ Spike response overall rate of change was significant at T1 (p = 0.038) and at T2 (p < 0.001), while decreasing at T6. For CD8+ Spike reactivity, the interaction between the time and group was significant (p = 0.0265), and the p value for group comparison was significant at the baseline (p = 0.0030) with higher SI in previously infected subjects. Overall, the anti-S Abs significantly increased from T1 to T6 compared to T0. The group B at T6 retained high anti-S titer (p < 0.001). At T6, in both groups we found a persistent humoral response and a high CD4+ T cell response able to cross recognize SARS-COV-2 variants including epsilon, even if not a circulating virus at that time.

Herpes Simplex Virus 1 (HSV-1) Reactivation in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Brief Narrative Review.

Systemic or pulmonary reactivations of herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) have been reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19, posing a dilemma for clinicians in terms of their diagnostic and clinical relevance. Prevalence of HSV-1 reactivation may be as high as > 40% in this population, but with large heterogeneity across studies, likely reflecting the different samples and/or cut-offs for defining reactivation. There is frequently agreement on the clinical significance of HSV-1 reactivation in the presence of severe manifestations clearly attributable to the virus. However, the clinical implications of HSV-1 reactivations in the absence of manifest signs and symptoms remain controversial. Our review aims at providing immunological background and at reviewing clinical findings on HSV-1 reactivations in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Early Clinical Experience with Molnupiravir for Mild to Moderate Breakthrough COVID-19 among Fully Vaccinated Patients at Risk for Disease Progression.

Information on the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in daily clinical practice is very scarce. We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of fully vaccinated patients with mild to moderate breakthrough COVID-19 treated with molnupiravir between January 2022 and February 2022. Overall, 145 patients were enrolled. Their median age was 71.0 years, and 60.7% were males. The most common underlying condition was a severe cardiovascular disease (37.2%), followed by primary or acquired immunodeficiency (22.8%), and oncological/onco-hematological disease in the active phase (22.1%). At 30 days after breakthrough COVID-19 diagnosis, only 4 out of 145 patients (2.7%) required hospital admission. No patients developed severe COVID-19, were admitted to the ICU, or died during the follow-up period. Adverse events, mild in intensity, occurred in 2 patients (1.4%). Our results support the current evidence establishing positive clinical and safety outcomes of molnupiravir in fully vaccinated patients with mild or moderate breakthrough COVID-19.

Prevalence of Viral Hepatitis in Unselected, Consecutively Enrolled Patients Hospitalised for SARS-CoV-2.

Diagnosing people living with chronic viral hepatitis is challenging due to the absence of symptoms as long as liver decompensated cirrhosis come out. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the prevalence of HBV and/or HCV infections in a non-selected population, hospitalised for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a tertiary care hospital in Northern Italy. During the study period 1,429 patients were admitted to hospital for SARS-CoV-2 infection, serologic tests for HBV and/or HCV were available for 382 (27%) patients and 3 were excluded due to their previous known serologic status. Among 379 patients, 235 (62%) were male, median age was 70 years (range 21-103), 360 (95%) were Caucasian. Among them, 372/379 (98%) were screened for HBsAg, 320/379 (84%) for HBcAb. HBsAg was positive in 2/372 (0.5%, 95% CI 0.0006-0.02) patients (only in one HBV-DNA was performed that was negative), while HBcAb was found positive in 55/320 (17%, 95% CI 0.13-0.22). Among 370/379 (98%) patients screened for HCV, 11/370 (3%, 95% CI 0.02-0.05) had positive HCV-Ab. Five out of 11 (45%) were tested for HCV-RNA that resulted positive in two patients (0.5%, 95% CI 0.0006-0.02). Considering this data, even though the screening was performed in only 27% of study population, a tailored screening in people with known risk factors for hepatitis might be preferable to universal screening in low prevalence areas. Also a prompt diagnostic workout should begin in case of clinical or laboratory suspicion of hepatitis and in those starting immunosuppressive treatments.

Improving management and antimicrobial stewardship for bacterial and fungal infections in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) infection is being one of the most significant challenges of health care systems worldwide. Bacterial and fungal infections in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are uncommon but consumption of antibiotics and antifungals has increased dramatically during the ongoing pandemic resulting in increased selective pressure for global antimicrobial resistance. Nosocomial bacterial superinfections appear to be more frequent than community-acquired coinfections, particularly among patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and those receiving immunosuppressive treatment. Fungal infections associated with COVID-19 might be missed or misdiagnosed. Existing and new antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes can be utilized directly in COVID-19 pandemic and are urgently needed to contain the high rates of misdiagnosis and antimicrobial prescription. The aim of this review is to describe the role of bacterial and fungal infections and possible strategies of AMS to use in daily practice for optimal management of COVID-19.

Candida auris Candidemia in Critically Ill, Colonized Patients: Cumulative Incidence and Risk Factors.

INTRODUCTION: Candida auris (C. auris) is an emerging nosocomial pathogen, and a sharp rise in cases of colonization and infection has been registered in intensive care units (ICUs) during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The unfavorable resistance profile of C. auris and the potential high mortality of C. auris infections represent an important challenge for physicians. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective study including all patients admitted to ICUs with isolation of C. auris in any non-sterile body site between February 20, 2020, and May 31, 2021. The primary aim of the study was to assess the cumulative incidence of C. auris candidemia in colonized patients. The secondary aim was to identify predictors of C. auris candidemia in the study population. RESULTS: During the study period, 157 patients admitted to ICUs in our hospital became colonized with C. auris; 59% of them were affected by COVID-19. Overall, 27 patients (17%) developed C. auris candidemia. The cumulative risk of developing C. auris candidemia was > 25% at 60 days after first detection of C. auris colonization. Seven patients with C. auris candidemia (26%) also developed a late recurrent episode. All C. auris blood isolates during the first occurring episode were resistant to fluconazole and susceptible to echinocandins, while 15 (56%) were resistant to amphotericin B. During late recurrent episodes, emergent resistance to caspofungin and amphotericin B occurred in one case each. In the final multivariable model, only multisite colonization retained an independent association with the development of C. auris candidemia. CONCLUSION: Candida auris candidemia may occur in up to one fourth of colonized critically ill patients, and multisite colonization is an independent risk factor for the development of candidemia. Implementing adequate infection control measures remains crucial to prevent colonization with C. auris and indirectly the subsequent development of infection.

Early versus late intubation in COVID-19 patients failing helmet CPAP: A quantitative computed tomography study.

PURPOSE: To describe the effects of timing of intubation in COVID-19 patients that fail helmet continuous positive airway pressure (h-CPAP) on progression and severity of disease. METHODS: COVID-19 patients that failed h-CPAP, required intubation, and underwent chest computed tomography (CT) at two levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP, 8 and 16 cmH2O) were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided in two groups (early versus late) based on the duration of h-CPAP before intubation. Endpoints included percentage of non-aerated lung tissue at PEEP of 8 cmH2O, respiratory system compliance and oxygenation. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were included and classified in early (h-CPAP for ≤2 days, N = 26) and late groups (h-CPAP for >2 days, N = 26). Patients in the late compared to early intubation group presented: 1) lower respiratory system compliance (median difference, MD -7 mL/cmH2O, p = 0.044) and PaO2/FiO2 (MD -29 mmHg, p = 0.047), 2) higher percentage of non-aerated lung tissue (MD 7.2%, p = 0.023) and 3) similar lung recruitment increasing PEEP from 8 to 16 cmH2O (MD 0.1%, p = 0.964). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 patients receiving h-CPAP, late intubation was associated with worse clinical presentation at ICU admission and more advanced disease. The possible detrimental effects of delaying intubation should be carefully considered in these patients.

Aspergillus endocarditis in the recent years, report of cases of a multicentric national cohort and literature review.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To describe the incidence, clinical characteristics, treatment and outcome of Aspergillus Endocarditis (AE) in a nationwide multicentric cohort (GAMES). (2) To compare the AE cases of the GAMES cohort, with the AE cases reported in the literature since 2010. (3) To identify variables related to mortality. METHODS: We recruited 10 AE cases included in the GAMES cohort (January 2008-December 2018) and 51 cases from the literature published from January 2010 to July 2019. RESULTS: 4528 patients with infectious endocarditis (IE) were included in the GAMES cohort, of them 10 (0.2%) were AE. After comparing our 10 cases with the 51 of the literature, no differences were found. Analysing the 61 AE cases together, 55.7% were male, median age 45 years. Their main underlying conditions were as follows: prosthetic valve surgery (34.4%) and solid organ transplant (SOT) (19.7%). Mainly affecting mitral (36.1%) and aortic valve (29.5%). Main isolated species were as follows: Aspergillus fumigatus (47.5%) and Aspergillus flavus (24.6%). Embolisms occurred in 54%. Patients were treated with antifungals (90.2%), heart surgery (85.2%) or both (78.7%). Overall, 52.5% died. A greater mortality was observed in immunosuppressed patients (59.4% vs. 24.1%, OR = 4.09, 95%CI = 1.26-13.19, p = .02), and lower mortality was associated with undergoing cardiac surgery plus azole therapy (28.1% vs. 65.5%, OR = 0.22, 95%CI = 0.07-0.72, p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: AE accounts for 0.2% of all IE episodes of a national multicentric cohort, mainly affecting patients with previous valvular surgery or SOT recipients. Mortality remains high especially in immunosuppressed hosts and azole-based treatment combined with surgical resection are related to a better outcome.

Aspergillus-PCR in bronchoalveolar lavage - diagnostic accuracy for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is challenging, and the role of Aspergillus-PCR in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated diagnostic accuracy of Aspergillus-PCR in BAL in IPA in three different cohorts: ICU-admitted patients with COVID-19, ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 and immunocompromised patients. METHODS: All stored available BAL samples collected from three patient groups were tested with Aspergillus-PCR (AsperGenius® ). IPA was diagnosed according to appropriate criteria for each patient group. RESULTS: We included 111 BAL samples from 101 patients: 52 (51%) patients admitted to ICU for COVID-19, 24 (24%) admitted to ICU for other reasons and 25 (25%) immunocompromised. There were 31 cases of IPA (28%). Aspergillus-PCR sensitivity was 64% (95% CI 47-79) and specificity 99% (95% CI 93-100). Aspergillus-PCR sensitivity was 40% (95%CI 19-64) in ICU COVID-19, 67% (95% CI 21-93) in non-COVID-19 ICU patients and 92% (95%CI 67-98) in the immunocompromised. The concordance between positive BAL-GM and BAL-PCR in patients with and without IPA was significantly lower in ICU patients (32%; 43% in COVID-19, 18% in non-COVID-19) than in the immunocompromised (92%), p < .001. CONCLUSIONS: Aspergillus-PCR in BAL improves the diagnostic accuracy of BAL-GM in ICU patients.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus lung infection in coronavirus disease 2019: how common?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may develop pulmonary bacterial coinfection or superinfection, that could unfavorably impact their prognosis. RECENT FINDINGS: The exact burden of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) lung infection in peculiar populations such as patients with COVID-19 remains somewhat elusive, possibly because of wide heterogeneity in methods and endpoints across studies. SUMMARY: There was important heterogeneity in the retrieved literature on the epidemiology of MRSA lung infection in patients with COVID-19, both when considering all other bacteria as the denominator (relative prevalence ranging from 2% to 29%) and when considering only S. aureus as the denominator (relative prevalence ranging from 11% to 65%). Overall, MRSA is among the most frequent causative agents of pulmonary infection in patients with COVID-19. Improving our ability to rapidly reach etiological diagnosis of bacterial lung infection in COVID-19 patients remains fundamental if we are to improve the rates of appropriate antibiotic therapy in patients with COVID-19 and concomitant/superimposed MRSA infection, at the same time avoiding antibiotic overuse in line with antimicrobial stewardship principles.

Early Administration of Bamlanivimab in Combination with Etesevimab Increases the Benefits of COVID-19 Treatment: Real-World Experience from the Liguria Region.

Monoclonal antibodies, such as bamlanivimab and etesevimab combination (BEC), have been proposed for patients with mild or moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, few studies have assessed the factors associated with the early administration of BEC or the impact of early BEC treatment on the clinical evolution of the patients. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adults with COVID-19 who received BEC at three institutions in the Liguria region. The primary endpoint was to investigate the clinical variables associated with early BEC infusion. Secondary endpoints were 30-day overall mortality and the composite endpoint of requirement of hospital admission or need for supplemental oxygen during the 30-day follow-up period. A total of 127 patients (median age 70 years; 56.7% males) received BEC. Of those, 93 (73.2%) received BEC within 5 days from symptoms onset (early BEC). Patients with a higher Charlson comorbidity index were more likely to receive early treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-2.45; p = 0.03) in contrast to those reporting fever at presentation (OR 0.26, 0.08-0.82; p = 0.02). Early BEC was associated with lower likelihood of hospital admission or need for supplemental oxygen (OR 0.19, 0.06-0.65; p = 0.008). Five patients who received early BEC died during the follow-up period, but only one of them due to COVID-19-related causes. Early bamlanivimab and etesevimab combination was more frequently administered to patients with a high Charlson comorbidity index. Despite this, early BEC was associated with a lower rate of hospital admission or need for any supplementary oxygen compared to late administration. These results suggest that efforts should focus on encouraging early BEC use in patients with mild-moderate COVID-19 at risk for complications.