Objectives To describe the burden, epidemiology and outcomes of co-infections and superinfections occurring in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods We performed an observational cohort study of all consecutive patients admitted for ≥48 hours to the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona for COVID-19 (28 February to 22 April 2020) who were discharged or dead. We describe demographic, epidemiologic, laboratory and microbiologic results, as well as outcome data retrieved from electronic health records. Results Of a total of 989 consecutive patients with COVID-19, 72 (7.2%) had 88 other microbiologically confirmed infections: 74 were bacterial, seven fungal and seven viral. Community-acquired co-infection at COVID-19 diagnosis was uncommon (31/989, 3.1%) and mainly caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus . A total of 51 hospital-acquired bacterial superinfections, mostly caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli , were diagnosed in 43 patients (4.7%), with a mean (SD) time from hospital admission to superinfection diagnosis of 10.6 (6.6) days. Overall mortality was 9.8% (97/989). Patients with community-acquired co-infections and hospital-acquired superinfections had worse outcomes. Conclusions Co-infection at COVID-19 diagnosis is uncommon. Few patients developed superinfections during hospitalization. These findings are different compared to those of other viral pandemics. As it relates to hospitalized patients with COVID-19, such findings could prove essential in defining the role of empiric antimicrobial therapy or stewardship strategies.

The WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group IMPORTANCE Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm.OBJECTIVE To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes.DATA SOURCES Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts.STUDY SELECTION Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISIn this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I 2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days.RESULTS A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P < .001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P = .52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hosp...

The main characteristics of mechanically ventilated ARDS patients affected with COVID-19, and the adherence to lung-protective ventilation strategies are not well known. We describe characteristics and outcomes of confirmed ARDS in COVID-19 patients managed with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, observational study in consecutive, mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS (as defined by the Berlin criteria) affected with with COVID-19 (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in nasal or pharyngeal swab specimens), admitted to a network of 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs) between March 12 and June 1, 2020. We examined the clinical features, ventilatory management, and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients, and compared some results with other relevant studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Results: A total of 742 patients were analysed with complete 28-day outcome data: 128 (17.1%) with mild, 331 (44.6%) with moderate, and 283 (38.1%) with severe ARDS. At baseline, defined as the first day on invasive MV, median (IQR) values were: tidal volume 6.9 (6.3-7.8) ml/kg predicted body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure 12 (11-14) cmH 2 O. Values of respiratory system compliance 35 (27-45) ml/cmH 2 O, plateau pressure 25 (22-29) cmH 2 O, and driving pressure 12 (10-16) cmH 2 O were similar to values from non-COVID-19 ARDS patients observed in other studies. Recruitment maneuvers, prone position and neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 79%, 76% and 72% of patients, respectively. The risk of 28-day mortality was lower in mild ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.33-0.93), p = 0.026] and moderate ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.47-0.97), p = 0.035] when compared to severe ARDS. The 28-day mortality was similar to other observational studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Conclusions: In this large series, COVID-19 ARDS patients have features similar to other causes of ARDS, compliance with lung-protective ventilation was high, and the risk of 28-day mortality increased with the degree of ARDS severity.

To assess the association between inclusion of a macrolide in a beta-lactam-based empirical antibiotic regimen and mortality among patients with bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia, 10 years of data from a database were analyzed. The total available set of putative prognostic factors was subjected to stepwise logistic regression, with in-hospital death as the dependent variable. Of the 409 patients analyzed, 238 (58%) received a beta-lactam plus a macrolide and 171 (42%) received a beta-lactam without a macrolide. Multivariate analysis revealed 4 variables to be independently associated with death: shock (P<.0001), age of >or=65 years (P=.02), infections with pathogens that have resistance to both penicillin and erythromycin (P=.04), and no inclusion of a macrolide in the initial antibiotic regimen (P=.03). For patients with bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia, not adding a macrolide to a beta-lactam-based initial antibiotic regimen is an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality. However, only a randomized study can definitively determine whether this association is due to a real effect of macrolides.

To assess whether methicillin resistance is a microbial characteristic associated with deleterious clinical outcome, we performed a cohort study on 908 consecutive episodes of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and a case-control study involving 163 pairs of patients matched for preexisting comorbidities, prognosis of the underlying disease, length of hospitalization, and age. Of 908 bacteremic episodes, 225 (24.8%) were due to methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Multivariate analysis did not reveal that methicillin resistance was an independent predictor for mortality when shock, source of bacteremia, presence of an ultimately or rapidly fatal underlying disease, acquisition of the infection in an intensive care unit (ICU), inappropriate empirical therapy, female sex, and age were taken into account. Nonetheless, methicillin resistance was an independent predictor for shock. The case-control study could not confirm that shock was linked to MRSA when prior antimicrobial therapy, inappropriate treatment, ICU residence, and female sex were considered. Our data suggest that cohort studies tend to magnify the relationship of MRSA with clinical markers of microbial pathogenicity and that this effect is a shortcoming of these kind of studies that is caused by inadequate control for underlying diseases.

The aim of the study was to determine the causes and prognostic implications of antimicrobial treatment failures in patients with nonresponding and progressive life-threatening, community-acquired pneumonia. Forty-nine patients hospitalized with a presumptive diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia during a 16-mo period, failure to respond to antimicrobial treatment, and documented repeated microbial investigation >/= 72 h after initiation of in-hospital antimicrobial treatment were recorded. A definite etiology of treatment failure could be established in 32 of 49 (65%) patients, and nine additional patients (18%) had a probable etiology. Treatment failures were mainly infectious in origin and included primary, persistent, and nosocomial infections (n = 10 [19%], 13 [24%], and 11 [20%] of causes, respectively). Definite but not probable persistent infections were mostly due to microbial resistance to the administered initial empiric antimicrobial treatment. Nosocomial infections were particularly frequent in patients with progressive pneumonia. Definite persistent infections and nosocomial infections had the highest associated mortality rates (75 and 88%, respectively). Nosocomial pneumonia was the only cause of treatment failure independently associated with death in multivariate analysis (RR, 16.7; 95% CI, 1.4 to 194.9; p = 0.03). We conclude that the detection of microbial resistance and the diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonia are the two major challenges in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia who do not respond to initial antimicrobial treatment. In order to establish these potentially life-threatening etiologies, a regular microbial reinvestigation seems mandatory for all patients presenting with antimicrobial treatment failures.

Background Awake prone positioning (awake-PP) in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients could avoid endotracheal intubation, reduce the use of critical care resources, and improve survival. We aimed to examine whether the combination of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) with awake-PP prevents the need for intubation when compared to HFNO alone. Methods Prospective, multicenter, adjusted observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving respiratory support with HFNO from 12 March to 9 June 2020. Patients were classified as HFNO with or without awake-PP. Logistic models were fitted to predict treatment at baseline using the following variables: age, sex, obesity, non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE-II, C-reactive protein, days from symptoms onset to HFNO initiation, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation. We compared data on demographics, vital signs, laboratory markers, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, days to intubation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality between HFNO patients with and without awake-PP. Results A total of 1076 patients with COVID-19 ARF were admitted, of which 199 patients received HFNO and were analyzed. Fifty-five (27.6%) were pronated during HFNO; 60 (41%) and 22 (40%) patients from the HFNO and HFNO + awake-PP groups were intubated. The use of awake-PP as an adjunctive therapy to HFNO did not reduce the risk of intubation [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.53–1.43), p = 0.60]. Patients treated with HFNO + awake-PP showed a trend for delay in intubation compared to HFNO alone [median 1 (interquartile range, IQR 1.0–2.5) vs 2 IQR 1.0–3.0] days (p = 0.055), but awake-PP did not affect 28-day mortality [RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.40–2.72), p = 0.92]. Conclusion In patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with HFNO, the use of awake-PP did not reduce the need for intubation or affect mortality.

Although hemolysin is the main virulence factor by which E. coli causes acute prostatitis, the association between hemolysin and biofilm formation may result in increased ability of E. coli strains to persist in the prostate.