Bacterial and Fungal Coinfection in Individuals With Coronavirus: A Rapid Review To Support COVID-19 Antimicrobial Prescribing.

BACKGROUND: To explore and describe the current literature surrounding bacterial/fungal coinfection in patients with coronavirus infection. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched using broad-based search criteria relating to coronavirus and bacterial coinfection. Articles presenting clinical data for patients with coronavirus infection (defined as SARS-1, MERS, SARS-CoV-2, and other coronavirus) and bacterial/fungal coinfection reported in English, Mandarin, or Italian were included. Data describing bacterial/fungal coinfections, treatments, and outcomes were extracted. Secondary analysis of studies reporting antimicrobial prescribing in SARS-CoV-2 even in absence of coinfection was performed. RESULTS: 1007 abstracts were identified. Eighteen full texts reporting bacterial/fungal coinfection were included. Most studies did not identify or report bacterial/fungal coinfection (85/140; 61%). Nine of 18 (50%) studies reported on COVID-19, 5/18 (28%) on SARS-1, 1/18 (6%) on MERS, and 3/18 (17%) on other coronaviruses. For COVID-19, 62/806 (8%) patients were reported as experiencing bacterial/fungal coinfection during hospital admission. Secondary analysis demonstrated wide use of broad-spectrum antibacterials, despite a paucity of evidence for bacterial coinfection. On secondary analysis, 1450/2010 (72%) of patients reported received antimicrobial therapy. No antimicrobial stewardship interventions were described. For non-COVID-19 cases, bacterial/fungal coinfection was reported in 89/815 (11%) of patients. Broad-spectrum antibiotic use was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite frequent prescription of broad-spectrum empirical antimicrobials in patients with coronavirus-associated respiratory infections, there is a paucity of data to support the association with respiratory bacterial/fungal coinfection. Generation of prospective evidence to support development of antimicrobial policy and appropriate stewardship interventions specific for the COVID-19 pandemic is urgently required.

Consensus recommendations for resistance testing in the management of chronic hepatitis C virus infection: Public Health England HCV Resistance Group.

The treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has been revolutionised by the advent of oral, well-tolerated, direct acting antiviral therapies (DAA), with high cure rates. However, in some scenarios, HCV resistance to antiviral therapies may have an impact on treatment success. Public Health England's HCV Resistance Group was established to support clinicians treating people with HCV, where the issue of resistance may be a factor in clinical decision-making, and this review includes the Group's current recommendations on the use of HCV resistance testing. The authors describe the principles behind and approach to HCV resistance testing and consider evidence from in vitro studies, clinical trials and real world cohorts on the impact of HCV resistance on treatment outcomes for particular DAA regimens. Five scenarios are identified in the UK and similar settings, where, in the Group's opinion, resistance testing should be performed.

Impact on and use of an inner-city London Infectious Diseases Department by international migrants: a questionnaire survey.

BACKGROUND: The UK has witnessed a considerable increase in immigration in the past decade. Migrant may face barriers to accessing appropriate health care on arrival and the current focus on screening certain migrants for tuberculosis on arrival is considered inadequate. We assessed the implications for an inner-city London Infectious Diseases Department in a high migrant area. METHODS: We administered an anonymous 20-point questionnaire survey to all admitted patients during a 6 week period. Questions related to sociodemographic characteristics and clinical presentation. Analysis was by migration status (UK born vs overseas born). RESULTS: 111 of 133 patients completed the survey (response rate 83.4%). 58 (52.2%) were born in the UK; 53 (47.7%) of the cohort were overseas born. Overseas-born were over-represented in comparison to Census data for this survey site (47.7% vs 33.6%; proportional difference 0.142 [95% CI 0.049-0.235]; p = 0.002): overseas born reported 33 different countries of birth, most (73.6%) of whom arrived in the UK pre-1975 and self-reported their nationality as British. A smaller number (26.4%) were new migrants to the UK (< or =10 years), mostly refugees/asylum seekers. Overseas-born patients presented with a broad range and more severe spectrum of infections, differing from the UK-born population, resulting in two deaths in this group only. Presentation with a primary infection was associated with refugee/asylum status (n = 8; OR 6.35 [95% CI 1.28-31.50]; p = 0.023), being a new migrant (12; 10.62 [2.24-50.23]; p = 0.003), and being overseas born (31; 3.69 [1.67-8.18]; p = 0.001). Not having registered with a primary-care physician was associated with being overseas born, being a refugee/asylum seeker, being a new migrant, not having English as a first language, and being in the UK for < or =5 years. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of duration of illness prior to presentation or duration of hospitalisation (mean 11.74 days [SD 12.69]). CONCLUSION: Migrants presented with a range of more severe infections, which suggests they face barriers to accessing appropriate health care and screening both on arrival and once settled through primary care services. A more organised and holistic approach to migrant health care is required.