Increased incidence of candidemia in critically ill patients during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) are treated with corticosteroids. AIM: We aimed to evaluate the role of corticosteroid treatment in candidemia development during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in a Greek ICU, from 2010 to August 2021, encompassing a pre-pandemic and a pandemic period (pandemic period: April 2020 to August 2021). All adult patients with candidemia were included. RESULTS: During the study period, 3,572 patients were admitted to the ICU, 339 patients during the pandemic period, of whom 196 were SARS-CoV-2-positive. In total, 281 candidemia episodes were observed in 239 patients, 114 in the pandemic period. The majority of candidemias in both periods were catheter-related (161; 50.4%). The incidence of candidemia in the pre-pandemic period was 5.2 episodes per 100 admissions, while in the pandemic period was 33.6 (p < 0.001). In the pandemic period, the incidence among COVID-19 patients was 38.8 episodes per 100 admissions, while in patients without COVID-19 incidence was 26.6 (p = 0.019). Corticosteroid administration in both periods was not associated with increased candidemia incidence. CONCLUSIONS: A significant increase of candidemia incidence was observed during the pandemic period in patients with and without COVID-19. This increase cannot be solely attributed to immunosuppression (corticosteroids, tocilizumab) of severe COVID-19 patients, but also to increased workload of medical and nursing staff.

Increased incidence of candidemia in critically ill patients during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic

Abstract Background Patients with severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) are treated with corticosteroids. Aim We aimed to evaluate the role of corticosteroid treatment in candidemia development during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This retrospective study was conducted in a Greek ICU, from 2010 to August 2021, encompassing a pre-pandemic and a pandemic period (pandemic period: April 2020 to August 2021). All adult patients with candidemia were included. Results During the study period, 3,572 patients were admitted to the ICU, 339 patients during the pandemic period, of whom 196 were SARS-CoV-2-positive. In total, 281 candidemia episodes were observed in 239 patients, 114 in the pandemic period. The majority of candidemias in both periods were catheter-related (161; 50.4%). The incidence of candidemia in the pre-pandemic period was 5.2 episodes per 100 admissions, while in the pandemic period was 33.6 (p < 0.001). In the pandemic period, the incidence among COVID-19 patients was 38.8 episodes per 100 admissions, while in patients without COVID-19 incidence was 26.6 (p= 0.019). Corticosteroid administration in both periods was not associated with increased candidemia incidence. Conclusions A significant increase of candidemia incidence was observed during the pandemic period in patients with and without COVID-19. This increase cannot be solely attributed to immunosuppression (corticosteroids, tocilizumab) of severe COVID-19 patients, but also to increased workload of medical and nursing staff.

Factors affecting residual platelet aggregation in prasugrel treated patients.

Identification of factors affecting platelet reactivity (PR) and high PR (HPR) or high platelet inhibition (HPI) rates while on prasugrel maintenance dose (MD) might be helpful in avoiding ischemic or bleeding complications. We retrospectively analyzed all patients (n=233) treated in our institution between April 2010 and November 2012 who had platelet function assessment pre-prasugrel and following prasugrel 10 mg MD for at least 5 days, using the Verify Now P2Y12 platelet function assay. Multiple linear regression and logistic regression models were applied to identify independent factors affecting post-prasugrel PR level, HPR and HPI status. The amount of variance in PR under prasugrel MD that could be explained by the model was 25.9% (adjusted R²), p<0.001. Pre-prasugrel treatment PR, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), prasugrel loading and smoking uniquely accounted for 10.8%, 1.3%, 3.5% and 1.2% of the observed variance, respectively. HPR and HPI were observed in 7.7% and 13.7% of the cases, respectively. On multivariate analysis, pre-prasugrel PR in the upper quartile (>313 PRU) was the only independent factor associated with HPR under prasugrel MD. In contrast, pre-prasugrel PR in the lower quartile (<242 PRU) and prasugrel loading emerged as the only independent predictors of HPI. In patients under different clinical settings receiving prasugrel 10 mg MD a significant amount of the PR variability in response to prasugrel may be explained by pre- treatment PR level, ACS, prasugrel loading and smoking status. A high pre- treatment PR is associated with HPR, while a low pre-treatment PR and prasugrel loading predict HPI.

Randomized assessment of ticagrelor versus prasugrel antiplatelet effects in patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: It has been postulated that prasugrel might be the preferred treatment option in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to compare the pharmacodynamic action of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a prospective, single-center, single-blind, crossover study, 30 consecutive ACS patients with DM who had been pretreated with clopidogrel were randomized to either 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily or 10 mg prasugrel once daily with a 15-day treatment period. Platelet reactivity (PR) was assessed with the VerifyNow P2Y12 function assay, measured in P2Y12 reaction units (PRU). RESULTS: PR was significantly lower after ticagrelor (45.2 PRU [95% CI 27.4-63.1]) compared with prasugrel (80.8 PRU [63.0-98.7]), with a least squares mean difference of -35.6 PRU (-55.2 to -15.9, P = 0.001). High PR rate was 0% for ticagrelor and 3.3% for prasugrel (P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: In DM patients with ACS who had been pretreated with clopidogrel and who undergo PCI, ticagrelor achieves a significantly higher platelet inhibition than prasugrel. Both antiplatelet agents effectively treat high PR. The relevance of these findings to the clinical efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in DM patients needs further elucidation.