Background Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) remain important causes of morbidity and mortality. The consensus definitions of the Infectious Diseases Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group have been of immense value to researchers who conduct clinical trials of antifungals, assess diagnostic tests, and undertake epidemiologic studies. However, their utility has not extended beyond patients with cancer or recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants. With newer diagnostic techniques available, it was clear that an update of these definitions was essential. Methods To achieve this, 10 working groups looked closely at imaging, laboratory diagnosis, and special populations at risk of IFD. A final version of the manuscript was agreed upon after the groups’ findings were presented at a scientific symposium and after a 3-month period for public comment. There were several rounds of discussion before a final version of the manuscript was approved. Results There is no change in the classifications of “proven,” “probable,” and “possible” IFD, although the definition of “probable” has been expanded and the scope of the category “possible” has been diminished. The category of proven IFD can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised. The probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only, except for endemic mycoses. Conclusions These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.

Background Spain is one of the European countries most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Serological surveys are a valuable tool to assess the extent of the epidemic, given the existence of asymptomatic cases and little access to diagnostic tests. This nationwide population-based study aims to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Spain at national and regional level.Methods 35 883 households were selected from municipal rolls using two-stage random sampling stratified by province and municipality size, with all residents invited to participate. From April 27 to May 11, 2020, 61 075 participants (75•1% of all contacted individuals within selected households) answered a questionnaire on history of symptoms compatible with COVID-19 and risk factors, received a point-of-care antibody test, and, if agreed, donated a blood sample for additional testing with a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. Prevalences of IgG antibodies were adjusted using sampling weights and post-stratification to allow for differences in non-response rates based on age group, sex, and census-tract income. Using results for both tests, we calculated a seroprevalence range maximising either specificity (positive for both tests) or sensitivity (positive for either test). FindingsSeroprevalence was 5•0% (95% CI 4•7-5•4) by the point-of-care test and 4•6% (4•3-5•0) by immunoassay, with a specificity-sensitivity range of 3•7% (3•3-4•0; both tests positive) to 6•2% (5•8-6•6; either test positive), with no differences by sex and lower seroprevalence in children younger than 10 years (<3•1% by the point-of-care test). There was substantial geographical variability, with higher prevalence around Madrid (>10%) and lower in coastal areas (<3%). Seroprevalence among 195 participants with positive PCR more than 14 days before the study visit ranged from 87•6% (81•1-92•1; both tests positive) to 91•8% (86•3-95•3; either test positive). In 7273 individuals with anosmia or at least three symptoms, seroprevalence ranged from 15•3% (13•8-16•8) to 19•3% (17•7-21•0). Around a third of seropositive participants were asymptomatic, ranging from 21•9% (19•1-24•9) to 35•8% (33•1-38•5). Only 19•5% (16•3-23•2) of symptomatic participants who were seropositive by both the point-of-care test and immunoassay reported a previous PCR test.Interpretation The majority of the Spanish population is seronegative to SARS-CoV-2 infection, even in hotspot areas. Most PCR-confirmed cases have detectable antibodies, but a substantial proportion of people with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 did not have a PCR test and at least a third of infections determined by serology were asymptomatic. These results emphasise the need for maintaining public health measures to avoid a new epidemic wave.

The European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, the European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the European Respiratory Society Joint Clinical Guidelines focus on diagnosis and management of aspergillosis. Of the numerous recommendations, a few are summarized here. Chest computed tomography as well as bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in patients with suspicion of pulmonary invasive aspergillosis (IA) are strongly recommended. For diagnosis, direct microscopy, preferably using optical brighteners, histopathology and culture are strongly recommended. Serum and BAL galactomannan measures are recommended as markers for the diagnosis of IA. PCR should be considered in conjunction with other diagnostic tests. Pathogen identification to species complex level is strongly recommended for all clinically relevant Aspergillus isolates; antifungal susceptibility testing should be performed in patients with invasive disease in regions with resistance found in contemporary surveillance programmes. Isavuconazole and voriconazole are the preferred agents for first-line treatment of pulmonary IA, whereas liposomal amphotericin B is moderately supported. Combinations of antifungals as primary treatment options are not recommended. Therapeutic drug monitoring is strongly recommended for patients receiving posaconazole suspension or any form of voriconazole for IA treatment, and in refractory disease, where a personalized approach considering reversal of predisposing factors, switching drug class and surgical intervention is also strongly recommended. Primary prophylaxis with posaconazole is strongly recommended in patients with acute myelogenous leukaemia or myelodysplastic syndrome receiving induction chemotherapy. Secondary prophylaxis is strongly recommended in high-risk patients. We strongly recommend treatment duration based on clinical improvement, degree of immunosuppression and response on imaging.