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.

Sensitivity and Specificity of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection Tests Using Oral, Anterior Nasal, and Nasopharyngeal Swabs: a Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

The objective of our study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen detection tests versus those of reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) using oral, anterior nasal, and nasopharyngeal swabs. The underlying prospective, diagnostic case-control-type accuracy study included 87 hospitalized and nonhospitalized participants in a positive and a negative sample cohort between 16 March and 14 May 2021 in two hospitals in Vienna. SARS-CoV-2 infection status was confirmed by RT-PCR. Participants self-performed one oral and one anterior nasal swab for the rapid antigen test, immediately followed by two nasopharyngeal swabs for the rapid antigen test and RT-PCR by the investigator. Test results were read after 15 min, and participants completed a questionnaire in the meantime. Test parameters were calculated based on the evaluation of 87 participants. The overall sensitivity of rapid antigen detection tests versus that of RT-PCR with oral, anterior nasal, and nasopharyngeal samples was 18.18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.19% to 32.71%), 63.04% (95% CI 47.55% to 76.79%), and 73.33% (95% CI 58.06% to 85.4%), respectively. All sampling methods had a test specificity of 100% regardless of the cycle threshold (CT) value. Rapid antigen detection tests using self-collected anterior nasal swabs proved to be as sensitive as and more tolerable than professionally collected nasopharyngeal swabs for CT values up to 30 determined by RT-PCR. This finding illustrates the reliability of tests obtained by adequate self-collected anterior nasal specimen. Sensitivity was dependent upon the CT value for each sampling method. While the main advantage of rapid antigen detection tests is the immediate availability of results, PCR should be preferred in crucial settings wherever possible. IMPORTANCE Rapid antigen detection devices for SARS-CoV-2 represent a valuable tool for monitoring the spread of infection. However, the reliability of the tests depends largely on the test performance and the respective sampling method. Nasopharyngeal swabs mark the gold standard for sample collection in suspected respiratory tract infections but are unsuitable for widespread application, as they must be performed by medically trained personnel. With the underlying study, the head-to-head test performance and the usability of self-collected samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection using rapid antigen detection devices were evaluated. The results confirm similar sensitivity of self-collected anterior nasal swabs to that of professionally collected nasopharyngeal swabs for patients with a CT of < 30 determined by RT-PCR.

Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics of Antiviral Agents Used to Treat SARS-CoV-2 and Their Potential Interaction with Drugs and Other Supportive Measures: A Comprehensive Review by the PK/PD of Anti-Infectives Study Group of the European Society of Antimicrobial Agents.

There is an urgent need to identify optimal antiviral therapies for COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2. We have conducted a rapid and comprehensive review of relevant pharmacological evidence, focusing on (1) the pharmacokinetics (PK) of potential antiviral therapies; (2) coronavirus-specific pharmacodynamics (PD); (3) PK and PD interactions between proposed combination therapies; (4) pharmacology of major supportive therapies; and (5) anticipated drug-drug interactions (DDIs). We found promising in vitro evidence for remdesivir, (hydroxy)chloroquine and favipiravir against SARS-CoV-2; potential clinical benefit in SARS-CoV-2 with remdesivir, the combination of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) plus ribavirin; and strong evidence for LPV/r plus ribavirin against Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) for post-exposure prophylaxis in healthcare workers. Despite these emerging data, robust controlled clinical trials assessing patient-centred outcomes remain imperative and clinical data have already reduced expectations with regard to some drugs. Any therapy should be used with caution in the light of potential drug interactions and the uncertainty of optimal doses for treating mild versus serious infections.