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.

To combat the threat to human health and biosecurity from antimicrobial resistance, an understanding of its mechanisms and drivers is needed. Emergence of antimicrobial resistance in microorganisms is a natural phenomenon, yet antimicrobial resistance selection has been driven by antimicrobial exposure in health care, agriculture, and the environment. Onward transmission is affected by standards of infection control, sanitation, access to clean water, access to assured quality antimicrobials and diagnostics, travel, and migration. Strategies to reduce antimicrobial resistance by removing antimicrobial selective pressure alone rely upon resistance imparting a fitness cost, an effect not always apparent. Minimising resistance should therefore be considered comprehensively, by resistance mechanism, microorganism, antimicrobial drug, host, and context; parallel to new drug discovery, broad ranging, multidisciplinary research is needed across these five levels, interlinked across the health-care, agriculture, and environment sectors. Intelligent, integrated approaches, mindful of potential unintended results, are needed to ensure sustained, worldwide access to effective antimicrobials.

Objectives: To investigate the incidence of bacterial and fungal coinfection of hospitalized patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in this retrospective observational study across two London hospitals during the first UK wave of coronavirus disease 2019 . Methods: A retrospective case series of hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 by PCR was analysed across two acute NHS hospitals (20 Februarye20 April 2020; each isolate reviewed independently in parallel). This was contrasted to a control group of influenza-positive patients admitted during the 2019e2020 flu season. Patient demographics, microbiology and clinical outcomes were analysed. Results: A total of 836 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were included; 27 (3.2%) of 836 had early confirmed bacterial isolates identified (0e5 days after admission), rising to 51 (6.1%) of 836 throughout admission. Blood cultures, respiratory samples, pneumococcal or Legionella urinary antigens and respiratory viral PCR panels were obtained from 643 (77%), 110 (13%), 249 (30%), 246 (29%) and 250 (30%) COVID-19 patients, respectively. A positive blood culture was identified in 60 patients (7.1%), of which 39 were classified as contaminants. Bacteraemia resulting from respiratory infection was confirmed in two cases (one each community-acquired Klebsiella pneumoniae and ventilator-associated Enterobacter cloacae). Line-related bacteraemia was identified in six patients (three Candida, two Enterococcus spp. and one Pseudomonas aeruginosa). All other community-acquired bacteraemias (n ¼ 16) were attributed to nonrespiratory infection. Zero concomitant pneumococcal, Legionella or influenza infection was detected. A low yield of positive respiratory cultures was identified; Staphylococcus aureus was the most common respiratory pathogen isolated in community-acquired coinfection (4/24; 16.7%), with pseudomonas and yeast identified in late-onset infection. Invasive fungal infections (n ¼ 3) were attributed to line-related infections. Comparable rates of positive coinfection were identified in the control group of confirmed influenza infection; clinically relevant bacteraemias (2/141; 1.4%), respiratory cultures (10/38; 26.3%) and pneumococcal-positive antigens (1/19; 5.3%) were low. Conclusions: We found a low frequency of bacterial coinfection in early COVID-19 hospital presentation, and no evidence of concomitant fungal infection, at least in the early phase of COVID-19.

No abstract

The emergence of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has required an unprecedented response to control the spread of the infection and protect the most vulnerable within society. Whilst the pandemic has focused society on the threat of emerging infections and hand hygiene, certain infection control and antimicrobial stewardship policies may have to be relaxed. It is unclear whether the unintended consequences of these changes will have a net-positive or -negative impact on rates of antimicrobial resistance. Whilst the urgent focus must be on controlling this pandemic, sustained efforts to address the longer-term global threat of antimicrobial resistance should not be overlooked.

Coronavirus disease 2019 may have a complex long-term impact on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Coordinated strategies at the individual, health-care and policy levels are urgently required to inform necessary actions to reduce the potential longer-term impact on AMR and on access to effective antimicrobials.

BackgroundAccurate antibody tests are essential to monitor the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver testing at scale. However, reported performance varies, and sensitivity analyses have generally been conducted on serum from hospitalised patients. For use in community testing, evaluation of finger-prick self-tests, in non-hospitalised individuals, is required.MethodsSensitivity analysis was conducted on 276 non-hospitalised participants. All had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR and were ≥21 days from symptom onset. In phase I, we evaluated five LFIAs in clinic (with finger prick) and laboratory (with blood and sera) in comparison to (1) PCR-confirmed infection and (2) presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on two ‘in-house’ ELISAs. Specificity analysis was performed on 500 prepandemic sera. In phase II, six additional LFIAs were assessed with serum.Findings95% (95% CI 92.2% to 97.3%) of the infected cohort had detectable antibodies on at least one ELISA. LFIA sensitivity was variable, but significantly inferior to ELISA in 8 out of 11 assessed. Of LFIAs assessed in both clinic and laboratory, finger-prick self-test sensitivity varied from 21% to 92% versus PCR-confirmed cases and from 22% to 96% versus composite ELISA positives. Concordance between finger-prick and serum testing was at best moderate (kappa 0.56) and, at worst, slight (kappa 0.13). All LFIAs had high specificity (97.2%–99.8%).InterpretationLFIA sensitivity and sample concordance is variable, highlighting the importance of evaluations in setting of intended use. This rigorous approach to LFIA evaluation identified a test with high specificity (98.6% (95%CI 97.1% to 99.4%)), moderate sensitivity (84.4% with finger prick (95% CI 70.5% to 93.5%)) and moderate concordance, suitable for seroprevalence surveys.

No abstract