ABSTRACT
SUMMARY During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, an increasing number of fungal infections associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection have been reported. Among them, cryptococcosis could be a life-threatening disease. We performed a Systematic Review (PRISMA Statement) of cryptococcosis and COVID-19 co-infection, case report/series were included: a total of 34 cases were found, then we added our case report. We collected patients' data and performed a statistical analysis comparing two groups of patients sorted by outcome: "dead” and "alive”. Three cases were excluded for lack of information. To compare categorical data, we used a Fisher-exact test (α=0.05). To compare quantitative variables a U Mann-Whitney test was used (α=0.05), with a 95% Confidence Interval. A total of 32 co-infected patients were included in the statistical analysis. Mortality rate was 17/32 (53.1%): these patients were included in "dead” group, and 15/32 (46.9%) patients survived and were included in "alive” group. Overall, males were 25/32 (78.1%), the median age was 60 years (IQR 53–70) with non-statistically significant difference between groups (p=0.149 and p=0.911, respectively). Three variables were associated with mortality: ARDS, ICU admission and inadequate treatment. Overall, 21 out of 24 (87.5%) patients were in ARDS with a statistically significant difference among two groups (p=0.028). ICU admission for COVID-19 was observed in 18/26 (69.2%), more frequently among dead group (p=0.034). Finally, 15/32 (46.9%) patients had adequate treatment (amphotericin B + flucytosine for invasive cryptococcosis) mostly among alive patients (p=0.039). In conclusion, mortality due to cryptococcal infection among COVID-19 patients remains high but an early diagnosis and appropriate treatment could reduce mortality.
ABSTRACT
During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, an increasing number of fungal infections associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection have been reported. Among them, cryptococcosis could be a life-threatening disease. We performed a Systematic Review (PRISMA Statement) of cryptococcosis and COVID-19 co-infection, case report/series were included: a total of 34 cases were found, then we added our case report. We collected patients' data and performed a statistical analysis comparing two groups of patients sorted by outcome: "dead" and "alive". Three cases were excluded for lack of information. To compare categorical data, we used a Fisher-exact test (α=0.05). To compare quantitative variables a U Mann-Whitney test was used (α=0.05), with a 95% Confidence Interval. A total of 32 co-infected patients were included in the statistical analysis. Mortality rate was 17/32 (53.1%): these patients were included in "dead" group, and 15/32 (46.9%) patients survived and were included in "alive" group. Overall, males were 25/32 (78.1%), the median age was 60 years (IQR 53-70) with non-statistically significant difference between groups (p=0.149 and p=0.911, respectively). Three variables were associated with mortality: ARDS, ICU admission and inadequate treatment. Overall, 21 out of 24 (87.5%) patients were in ARDS with a statistically significant difference among two groups (p=0.028). ICU admission for COVID-19 was observed in 18/26 (69.2%), more frequently among dead group (p=0.034). Finally, 15/32 (46.9%) patients had adequate treatment (amphotericin B + flucytosine for invasive cryptococcosis) mostly among alive patients (p=0.039). In conclusion, mortality due to cryptococcal infection among COVID-19 patients remains high but an early diagnosis and appropriate treatment could reduce mortality.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: One of the main challenges in the management of COVID-19 patients is to early assess and stratify them according to their risk of developing severe pneumonia. The alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient (D(A-a)O2) is defined as the difference between the alveolar and arteriolar concentration of oxygen, an accurate index of the ventilatory function. The aim of this study is to evaluate D(A-a)O2 as a marker for predicting severe pneumonia in COVID-19 patients, in comparison to the PaO2/FiO2. METHODS: This retrospective, multicentric cohort study included COVID-19 patients admitted to two Italian hospitals between April and July 2020. Clinical and laboratory data were retrospectively collected at the time of hospital admission and during hospitalization. The presence of severe COVID-19 pneumonia was evaluated, as defined by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) criteria for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Patients were divided in severe and non-severe groups. RESULTS: Overall, 53 COVID-19 patients were included in the study: male were 30/53 (57%), and 10/53 (19%) had severe pneumonia. Patients with severe pneumonia reported dyspnea more often than non-severe patients (90% vs. 39.5%; p = 0.031). A history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was recalled by 5/10 (50%) patients with severe pneumonia, and only in 6/43 (1.4%) of non-severe cases (p = 0.023). A ROC curve, for D(A-a)O2 >60 mmHg in detecting severe pneumonia, showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.877 (95% CI: 0.675-1), while the AUC of PaO2/FiO2 < 263 mmHg resulted 0.802 (95% CI: 0.544-1). D(A-a)O2 in comparison to PaO2/FiO2 had a higher sensibility (77.8% vs. 66.7%), positive predictive value (75% vs. 71.4%), negative predictive value (94% vs. 91%), and similar specificity (94.4% vs. 95.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the D(A-a)O2 is more appropriate than PaO2/FiO2 to identify COVID-19 patients at risk of developing severe pneumonia early.
ABSTRACT
SCOPE: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has become pandemic, reaching almost one million death worldwide. At present standard treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not well defined because the evidence, either from randomized or observational studies, with conflicting results, has led to rapid changes in treatment guidelines. Our aim was to narratively summarize the available literature on the management of COVID-19 in order to combine current evidence and interpretation of the data by experts who are treating patients in the frontline setting. METHODS: The panel conducted a detailed review of the literature and eventual press releases from randomized clinical trials for each possible available treatment. Inductive PubMed search waws performed for publications relevant to the topic, including all clinical trials conducted. The result was a flowchart with treatment indications for patients with COVID-19. IMPLICATIONS: After 6 months of a pandemic situation and before a possible second coronavirus wave descends on Europe, it is important to evaluate which drugs proved to be effective while also considering that results from many randomized clinical trials are still awaited. Indeed, among treatments for COVID-19, only glucocorticoids have resulted in an association with a significant decrease in mortality in published randomized controlled trials. New therapeutic strategies are urgently needed.