Introduction. During previous viral pandemics, reported co-infection rates and implicated pathogens have varied. In the 1918 influenza pandemic, a large proportion of severe illness and death was complicated by bacterial co-infection, predominantly Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus . Gap statement. A better understanding of the incidence of co-infection in patients with COVID-19 infection and the pathogens involved is necessary for effective antimicrobial stewardship. Aim. To describe the incidence and nature of co-infection in critically ill adults with COVID-19 infection in England. Methodology. A retrospective cohort study of adults with COVID-19 admitted to seven intensive care units (ICUs) in England up to 18 May 2020, was performed. Patients with completed ICU stays were included. The proportion and type of organisms were determined at <48 and >48 h following hospital admission, corresponding to community and hospital-acquired co-infections. Results. Of 254 patients studied (median age 59 years (IQR 49–69); 64.6 % male), 139 clinically significant organisms were identified from 83 (32.7 %) patients. Bacterial co-infections/ co-colonisation were identified within 48 h of admission in 14 (5.5 %) patients; the commonest pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (four patients) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (two patients). The proportion of pathogens detected increased with duration of ICU stay, consisting largely of Gram-negative bacteria, particularly Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli . The co-infection/ co-colonisation rate >48 h after admission was 27/1000 person-days (95 % CI 21.3–34.1). Patients with co-infections/ co-colonisation were more likely to die in ICU (crude OR 1.78,95 % CI 1.03–3.08, P=0.04) compared to those without co-infections/ co-colonisation. Conclusion. We found limited evidence for community-acquired bacterial co-infection in hospitalised adults with COVID-19, but a high rate of Gram-negative infection acquired during ICU stay.
BackgroundChanges over the last 5 years (2013–18) in the serotypes implicated in adult pneumococcal pneumonia and the patient groups associated with vaccine-type disease are largely unknown.MethodsWe conducted a population-based prospective cohort study of adults admitted to two large university hospitals with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) between September 2013 and August 2018. Pneumococcal serotypes were identified using a novel 24-valent urinary monoclonal antibody assay and from blood cultures. Trends in incidence rates were compared against national invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) data. Persons at risk of vaccine-type pneumonia (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV)13 and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV)23) were determined from multivariate analyses.FindingsOf 2934 adults hospitalised with CAP, 1075 (36.6%) had pneumococcal pneumonia. The annual incidence of pneumococcal pneumonia increased from 32.2 to 48.2 per 100 000 population (2013–18), predominantly due to increases in PCV13non7-serotype and non-vaccine type (NVT)-serotype pneumonia (annual incidence rate ratio 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21 and 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.28, respectively). Incidence trends were broadly similar to IPD data. PCV13non7 (56.9% serotype 3) and PPV23non13 (44.1% serotype 8) serotypes were identified in 349 (32.5%) and 431 (40.1%) patients with pneumococcal pneumonia, respectively. PCV13-serotype pneumonia (dominated by serotype 3) was more likely in patients in the UK pneumococcal vaccination clinical risk group (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.73, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.28) while PPV23-serotype pneumonia was more likely in patients outside the clinical risk group (aOR 1.54, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.10).InterpretationThe incidence of pneumococcal CAP is increasing, predominantly due to NVT serotypes and serotype 3. PPV23-serotype pneumonia is more likely in adults outside currently identified clinical risk groups.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.