A Tale of Two Hospitals: Comparing CAPA Infections in Two ICUs During the Spanish Fourth Pandemic Wave.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) is a new clinical entity linked to SARS-CoV-2 infection that is causing a rise on the risk of complications and mortality, particularly in critical patients. METHODS: We compared diagnostic and clinical features in two cohorts of patients with severe COVID-19 admitted in the intensive care units (ICU) of two different hospitals in Madrid, Spain, between February and June 2021. Clinical and microbiological relevant aspects for CAPA diagnosis were collected for further classification. CAPA was classified as colonization, possible, probable, proven, and tracheobronchial aspergillosis according to the ECMM/ISHAM consensus, with some modifications to consider tracheobronchial aspirate as sample comparable to non-bronchoscopic lavages (NBL). RESULTS: 56 patients admitted in HULP (Hospital Universitario La Paz) ICU and 61 patients admitted in HEEIZ (Hospital de Emergencias Isabel Zendal) ICU had clinical suspicion of invasive fungal disease in the context of COVID-19 infection. Cultures were positive for Aspergillus spp. in 32 patients. According to 2020 European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the International Society for Human and Animal Mycology (ECMM/ISHAM) consensus, 11 patients were diagnosed with possible CAPA and 10 patients with probable CAPA. Global incidence for CAPA was 6.3%. Global median days between ICU admission and diagnosis was 14 day. Aspergillus fumigatus complex was the main isolated species. Antifungal therapy was used in 75% of patients with CAPA suspicion, with inter-hospital differences in the administered antifungals. Global overall mortality rate for CAPA patients was 66.6% (14/21). All-cause mortality in non-CAPA cohorts were of 26.3% in HULP group (34/129) and 56.8% (104/183) in HEEIZ group. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in incidence between the two hospitals, and differences in antifungal therapy did not correlate with differences in mortality, reflecting that both first-line azoles and Amphotericin B could be effective in treating CAPA infections, according to the current guideline indications.

Clinitest rapid COVID-19 antigen test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A multicenter evaluation study.

OBJECTIVES: RT-PCR assay is the reference method for diagnosis of COVID-19, but it is also a laborious and time-consuming technic, limiting the availability of testing. Rapid antigen-detection tests are faster and less expensive; however, the reliability of these tests must be validated before they can be used widely. The objective of this study was to determine the performance of the Clinitest Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test (ClinitestRT) (SIEMENS) for SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab specimens. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study was carried out in three Spanish university hospitals including individuals with clinical symptoms or epidemiological criteria for COVID-19. Only individuals with ≤7 days from the onset of symptoms or from exposure to a confirmed case of COVID-19 were included. Two nasopharyngeal samples were taken to perform the ClinitestRT, as a point-of-care test, and a diagnostic RT-PCR test. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity and specificity for the ClinitestRT among the 450 patients studied were 93.3% (CI 95%: 89.7-96.8) and 99.2% (CI 95%: 97.2-99.8), respectively. Sensitivity in participants with ≤5 days of the clinical course was 93.6% (CI 95%: 89.2-96.3), and in participants who had a CT < 25 for the RT-PCR test was 98.4% (CI 95%: 94.5-99.6). Agreement between techniques was 96.7% (kappa score: 0.93; CI 95%: 0.90-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The ClinitestRT provides good clinical performance, with more reliable results for patients with a higher viral load. The results must be interpreted based on the local epidemiological context.

Think of the Children: Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test in Pediatric Population.

BACKGROUND: Real-time reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the reference laboratory method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection then requires equipment and is time-consuming. There is a crucial demand for rapid techniques such as antigen detection test. Considering the different diagnostic accuracy of tests with other respiratory viruses in adults and children, SARS-CoV-2 antigen test must be evaluated specifically in children. METHODS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (Abbott) as a point-of-care test for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in comparison to RT-qPCR in a pediatric population. RESULTS: Four hundred forty nasopharyngeal swabs were tested. Amongst the 18 positive RT-qPCR samples, 14 were detected by the rapid antigen test, given an overall sensitivity of 77.7%. All the samples detected positive with the antigen rapid test were also positive with RT-qPCR. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device is lower in children than in adults. Nevertheless, considering the good values of specificity, negative and positive predictive values this test could be used as a frontline test to obtain quick results, although the negative values with COVID-19 high clinical suspicion should be confirmed using RT-qPCR.