Community-acquired and hospital-acquired bacterial co-infections in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 or influenza: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial co-infections are believed to be less frequent in patients with Covid-19 than influenza, but frequencies varied between studies. METHODS: This single-center retrospective, propensity score-matched analysis included adult patients with Covid-19 or influenza admitted to normal-care wards between 02/2014 and 12/2021. Covid-19 cases were propensity score matched to influenza cases at a 2:1 ratio. Community-acquired and hospital-acquired bacterial co-infections were defined as positive blood or respiratory cultures ≤ 48 h or > 48 h after hospital admission, respectively. The primary outcome was comparison of community-acquired and hospital-acquired bacterial infections between patients with Covid-19 and influenza in the propensity score-matched cohort. Secondary outcomes included frequency of early and late microbiological testing. RESULTS: A total of 1337 patients were included in the overall analysis, of which 360 patients with Covid-19 were matched to 180 patients with influenza. Early (≤ 48 h) microbiological sampling was performed in 138 (38.3%) patients with Covid-19 and 75 (41.7%) patients with influenza. Community-acquired bacterial co-infections were found in 14 (3.9%) of 360 patients with Covid-19 and 7 (3.9%) of 180 patients with influenza (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.3-2.7). Late (> 48 h) microbiological sampling was performed in 129 (35.8%) patients with Covid-19 and 74 (41.1%) patients with influenza. Hospital-acquired bacterial co-infections were found in 40 (11.1%) of 360 patients with Covid-19 and 20 (11.1%) of 180 patients with influenza (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.5-1.8). CONCLUSION: The rate of community-acquired and hospital-acquired bacterial co-infections was similar in hospitalized Covid-19 and influenza patients. These findings contrast previous literature reporting that bacterial co-infections are less common in Covid-19 than influenza.

Efficacy and Safety of Corticosteroid Therapy for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of Randomized, Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. In the present study, we aimed to assess the effect of corticosteroids on all-cause mortality in patients hospitalized with CAP. METHODS: For this meta-analysis and meta-regression, we conducted a systematic search of trials that evaluated the effect of corticosteroid therapy in patients hospitalized with CAP through March 2023. We included randomized, controlled trials, comparing adjunctive corticosteroid therapy with the standard of care alone for treatment of patients hospitalized with CAP and reporting all-cause mortality. We excluded retrospective analyses, observational data, and trial protocols. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 30 days after hospital admission. The safety analysis included the frequency of adverse events and steroid-associated adverse events. RESULTS: The literature search identified 35 713 citations, of which 15 studies and 3367 patients were eligible for the final analysis. The all-cause mortality at 30 days was significantly lower in the corticosteroid group (104 of 1690, 6.15%) than in the control group (152 of 1677, 9.06%; risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], .53 to .85; P = .001; I2 = 0%). In 9 studies (2549 patients) that reported the occurrence of adverse events, corticosteroid therapy was not associated with an increased risk of developing any adverse event compared with standard care (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, .65 to 1.24; P = .5; I2 = 88%). CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive systemic corticosteroid therapy in patients hospitalized with CAP was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality by day 30. The benefits were more pronounced in patients with severe pneumonia.

Age-related influence on DNA damage, proteomic inflammatory markers and oxidative stress in hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to healthy controls.

COVID-19 infections are accompanied by adverse changes in inflammatory pathways that are also partly influenced by increased oxidative stress and might result in elevated DNA damage. The aim of this case-control study was to examine whether COVID-19 patients show differences in oxidative stress-related markers, unconjugated bilirubin (UCB), an inflammation panel and DNA damage compared to healthy, age-and sex-matched controls. The Comet assay with and without the treatment of formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosylase (FPG) and H2O2 challenge was used to detect DNA damage in whole blood. qPCR was applied for gene expression, UCB was analyzed via HPLC, targeted proteomics were applied using Olink® inflammation panel and various oxidative stress as well as clinical biochemistry markers were analyzed in plasma. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients (n = 48) demonstrated higher serum levels of 55 inflammatory proteins (p < 0.001), including hs-C-reactive protein levels (p < 0.05), compared to healthy controls (n = 48). Interestingly, significantly increased age-related DNA damage (%-DNA in tail) after formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosylase (FPG) treatment was measured in younger (n = 24, average age 55.7 years; p < 0.05) but not in older COVID-19 patients (n = 24, average age 83.5 years; p > 0.05). Although various oxidative stress markers were not altered (e.g., FRAP, malondialdehyde, p > 0.05), a significant increased ratio of oxidized to reduced glutathione was detected in COVID-19 patients compared to healthy controls (p < 0.05). UCB levels were significantly lower in individuals with COVID-19, especially in younger COVID-19 patients (p < 0.05). These results suggest that COVID-19 infections exert effects on DNA damage related to age in hospitalized COVID-19 patients that might be driven by changes in inflammatory pathways but are not altered by oxidative stress parameters.

Early Bacterial Coinfections in Patients Admitted to the ICU With COVID-19 or Influenza: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Previous findings suggest that bacterial coinfections are less common in ICU patients with COVID-19 than with influenza, but evidence is limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the rate of early bacterial coinfections in ICU patients with COVID-19 or influenza. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective propensity score matched cohort study. We included patients admitted to ICUs of a single academic center with COVID-19 or influenza (January 2015 to April 2022). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was early bacterial coinfection (i.e., positive blood or respiratory culture within 2 d of ICU admission) in the propensity score matched cohort. Key secondary outcomes included frequency of early microbiological testing, antibiotic use, and 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Out of 289 patients with COVID-19 and 39 patients with influenza, 117 (n = 78 vs 39) were included in the matched analysis. In the matched cohort, the rate of early bacterial coinfections was similar between COVID-19 and influenza (18/78 [23%] vs 8/39 [21%]; odds ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.42-3.45; p = 0.82). The frequency of early microbiological testing and antibiotic use was similar between the two groups. Within the overall COVID-19 group, early bacterial coinfections were associated with a statistically significant increase in 30-day all-cause mortality (21/68 [30.9%] vs 40/221 [18.1%]; hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.01-3.32). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our data suggest similar rates of early bacterial coinfections in ICU patients with COVID-19 and influenza. In addition, early bacterial coinfections were significantly associated with an increased 30-day mortality in patients with COVID-19.

Pulmonary Aspergillosis in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) is a life-threatening fungal infection that mainly affects critically ill patients. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and clinical outcomes of putative CAPA in critically ill COVID-19 patients. This retrospective observational cohort study included 181 cases from 5 ICUs at Vienna General Hospital between January 2020 and April 2022. Patients were diagnosed with putative CAPA according to the AspICU classification, which included a positive Aspergillus culture in a bronchoalveolar lavage sample, compatible signs and symptoms, and abnormal medical imaging. The primary outcome was adjusted 60-day all-cause mortality from ICU admission in patients with vs. without putative CAPA. Secondary outcomes included time from ICU admission to CAPA diagnosis and pathogen prevalence and distribution. Putative CAPA was identified in 35 (19.3%) of 181 COVID-19 patients. The mean time to diagnosis was 9 days. Death at 60 days occurred in 18 of 35 (51.4%) patients with CAPA and in 43 of 146 (29.5%) patients without CAPA (adjusted HR (95%CI) = 2.15 (1.20-3.86, p = 0.002). The most frequently isolated Aspergillus species was Aspergillus fumigatus. The prevalence of putative pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill COVID-19 patients was high and was associated with significantly higher mortality.

Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently finally determined in laboratory settings by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rt-PCR). However, simple testing with immediately available results are crucial to gain control over COVID-19. The aim was to evaluate such a point-of-care antigen rapid test (AG-rt) device in its performance compared to laboratory-based rt-PCR testing in COVID-19 suspected, symptomatic patients. METHODS: For this prospective study, two specimens each of 541 symptomatic female (54.7%) and male (45.3%) patients aged between 18 and 95 years tested at five emergency departments (ED, n = 296) and four primary healthcare centres (PHC, n = 245), were compared, using AG-rt (positive/negative/invalid) and rt-PCR (positive/negative and cycle threshold, Ct) to diagnose SARS-CoV-2. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios (LR+/-) of the AG-rt were assessed. RESULTS: Differences between ED and PHC were detected regarding gender, age, symptoms, disease prevalence, and diagnostic performance. Overall, 174 (32.2%) were tested positive on AG-rt and 213 (39.4%) on rt-PCR. AG correctly classified 91.7% of all rt-PCR positive cases with a sensitivity of 80.3%, specificity of 99.1%, PPV of 98.3, NPV of 88.6%, LR(+) of 87.8, and LR(-) of 0.20. The highest sensitivities and specificities of AG-rt were detected in PHC (sensitivity: 84.4%, specificity: 100.0%), when using Ct of 30 as cut-off (sensitivity: 92.5%, specificity: 97.8%), and when symptom onset was within the first three days (sensitivity: 82.9%, specificity: 99.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The highest sensitivity was detected with a high viral load. Our findings suggest that AG-rt are comparable to rt-PCR to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 suspected symptomatic patients presenting both at emergency departments and primary health care centres.

Standard blood laboratory values as a clinical support tool to distinguish between SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients.

Standard blood laboratory parameters may have diagnostic potential, if polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) tests are not available on time. We evaluated standard blood laboratory parameters of 655 COVID-19 patients suspected to be infected with SARS-CoV-2, who underwent PCR testing in one of five hospitals in Vienna, Austria. We compared laboratory parameters, clinical characteristics, and outcomes between positive and negative PCR-tested patients and evaluated the ability of those parameters to distinguish between groups. Of the 590 patients (20-100 years, 276 females and 314 males), 208 were PCR-positive. Positive compared to negative PCR-tested patients had significantly lower levels of leukocytes, neutrophils, basophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, monocytes, and thrombocytes; while significantly higher levels were detected with erythrocytes, hemoglobin, hematocrit, C-reactive-protein, ferritin, activated-partial-thromboplastin-time, alanine-aminotransferase, aspartate-aminotransferase, lipase, creatine-kinase, and lactate-dehydrogenase. From all blood parameters, eosinophils, ferritin, leukocytes, and erythrocytes showed the highest ability to distinguish between COVID-19 positive and negative patients (area-under-curve, AUC: 72.3-79.4%). The AUC of our model was 0.915 (95% confidence intervals, 0.876-0.955). Leukopenia, eosinopenia, elevated erythrocytes, and hemoglobin were among the strongest markers regarding accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and post-test probabilities. Our findings suggest that especially leukopenia, eosinopenia, and elevated hemoglobin are helpful to distinguish between COVID-19 positive and negative tested patients.