Background The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented healthcare challenges, and COVID-19 has been linked to secondary infections. Candidemia, a fungal healthcare-associated infection, has been described in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. However, studies of candidemia and COVID-19 co-infection have been limited in sample size and geographic scope. We assessed differences in patients with candidemia with and without a COVID-19 diagnosis. Methods We conducted a case-level analysis using population-based candidemia surveillance data collected through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Emerging Infections Program during April–August 2020 to compare characteristics of candidemia patients with and without a positive test for COVID-19 in the 30 days before their Candida culture using chi-square or Fisher exact tests. Results Of the 251 candidemia patients included, 64 (25.5%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Liver disease, solid organ malignancies, and prior surgeries were each >3 times more common in patients without COVID-19 co-infection, whereas intensive care unit-level care, mechanical ventilation, having a central venous catheter, and receipt of corticosteroids and immunosuppressants were each >1.3 times more common in patients with COVID-19. All cause in-hospital fatality was two times higher among those with COVID-19 (62.5%) than without (32.1%). Conclusions One quarter of candidemia patients had COVID-19. These patients were less likely to have certain underlying conditions and recent surgery commonly associated with candidemia and more likely to have acute risk factors linked to COVID-19 care, including immunosuppressive medications. Given the high mortality, it is important for clinicians to remain vigilant and take proactive measures to prevent candidemia in patients with COVID-19.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Several studies describe the health of recently resettled refugee populations in the US beyond the first 8 months after arrival. This review summarizes the results of these studies. Scientific articles from five databases published from January 2008 to March 2019 were reviewed. Articles were included if study subjects included any of the top five US resettlement populations during 2008–2018 and if data described long-term physical health outcomes beyond the first 8 months after arrival in the US. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria (1.5%). Refugee adults had higher odds of having a chronic disease compared with non-refugee immigrant adults, and an increased risk for diabetes compared with US-born controls. The most commonly reported chronic diseases among Iraqi, Somali, and Bhutanese refugee adults included diabetes and hypertension. Clinicians should consider screening and evaluating for chronic conditions in the early resettlement period. Further evaluations can build a more comprehensive, long-term health profile of resettled refugees to inform public health practice.

Introduction: Public health investigations, including research, in refugee populations are necessary to inform evidence-based interventions and care. The unique challenges refugees face (displacement, limited political protections, economic hardship) can make them especially vulnerable to harm, burden, or undue influence. Acute survival needs, fear of stigma or persecution, and history of trauma may present challenges to ensuring meaningful informed consent and establishing trust. We examined the recently published literature to understand the application of ethics principles in investigations involving refugees. Methods: We conducted a preliminary review of refugee health literature (research and non-research data collections) published from 2015 through 2018 available in PubMed. Article inclusion criteria were: participants were refugees, topic was health-related, and methods used primary data collection. Information regarding type of investigation, methods, and reported ethics considerations was abstracted. Results: We examined 288 articles. Results indicated 33% of investigations were conducted before resettlement, during the displacement period (68% of these were in refugee camps). Common topics included mental health (48%) and healthcare access (8%). The majority (87%) of investigations obtained consent. Incentives were provided less frequently (23%). Most authors discussed the ways in which community stakeholders were engaged (91%), yet few noted whether refugee representatives had an opportunity to review investigational protocols (8%). Cultural considerations were generally limited to gender and religious norms, and 13% mentioned providing some form of post-investigation support.

Background Candidemia is a common opportunistic infection causing substantial morbidity and mortality. Because of an increasing proportion of non-albicans Candida species and rising antifungal drug resistance, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) changed treatment guidelines in 2016 to recommend echinocandins over fluconazole as first-line treatment for adults with candidemia. We describe candidemia treatment practices and adherence to the updated guidelines. Methods During 2017–2018, the Emerging Infections Program conducted active population-based candidemia surveillance at nine U.S. sites using a standardized case definition. We assessed factors associated with initial antifungal treatment for the first candidemia case among adults using multivariable logistic regression models. To identify instances of potentially inappropriate treatment, we compared the first antifungal drug received with species and antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) results from initial blood cultures. Results Among 1,835 patients who received antifungal treatment, 1,258 (68.6%) received an echinocandin and 543 (29.6%) received fluconazole as initial treatment. Cirrhosis (adjusted odds ratio = 2.06, 95% confidence interval: 1.29–3.29) was the only underlying medical condition significantly associated with initial receipt of an echinocandin (versus fluconazole). Over half (n = 304, 56.0%) of patients initially treated with fluconazole grew a non-albicans species. Among 265 patients initially treated with fluconazole and with fluconazole AFST results, 28 (10.6%) had a fluconazole-resistant isolate. Conclusions A substantial proportion of patients with candidemia were initially treated with fluconazole, resulting in potentially inappropriate treatment for those involving non-albicans or fluconazole-resistant species. Reasons for non-adherence to IDSA guidelines should be evaluated, and clinician education is needed.

No abstract