No abstract

IMPORTANCE On February 27, 2020, the first patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the Netherlands. During the following weeks, at 2 Dutch teaching hospitals, 9 health care workers (HCWs) received a diagnosis of COVID-19, 8 of whom had no history of travel to China or northern Italy, raising the question of whether undetected community circulation was occurring. OBJECTIVE To determine the prevalence and clinical presentation of COVID-19 among HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study was performed in 2 teaching hospitals in the southern part of the Netherlands in March 2020, during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health care workers employed in the participating hospitals who experienced fever or respiratory symptoms were asked to voluntarily participate in a screening for infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Data analysis was performed in March 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was determined by semiquantitative real-time reverse transcriptasepolymerase chain reaction on oropharyngeal samples. Structured interviews were conducted to document symptoms for all HCWs with confirmed COVID-19. RESULTS Of 9705 HCWs employed (1722 male [18%]), 1353 (14%) reported fever or respiratory symptoms and were tested. Of those, 86 HCWs (6%) were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (median age, 49 years [range, 22-66 years]; 15 [17%] male), representing 1% of all HCWs employed. Most HCWs experienced mild disease, and only 46 (53%) reported fever. Eighty HCWs (93%) met a case definition of fever and/or coughing and/or shortness of breath. Only 3 (3%) of the HCWs identified through the screening had a history of travel to China or northern Italy, and 3 (3%) reported having been exposed to an inpatient with a known diagnosis of COVID-19 before the onset of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Within 2 weeks after the first Dutch case was detected, a substantial proportion of HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, likely as a result of acquisition of the virus in the community during the early phase of local spread. The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, suggests that the currently recommended case definition for suspected COVID-19 should be used less stringently.

Background 10 days after the first reported case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the Netherlands (on Feb 27, 2020), 55 (4%) of 1497 health-care workers in nine hospitals located in the south of the Netherlands had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. We aimed to gain insight in possible sources of infection in health-care workers.Methods We did a cross-sectional study at three of the nine hospitals located in the south of the Netherlands. We screened health-care workers at the participating hospitals for SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on clinical symptoms (fever or mild respiratory symptoms) in the 10 days before screening. We obtained epidemiological data through structured interviews with health-care workers and combined this information with data from whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples taken from health-care workers and patients. We did an in-depth analysis of sources and modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and patients. FindingsBetween March 2 and March 12, 2020, 1796 (15%) of 12 022 health-care workers were screened, of whom 96 (5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. We obtained complete and near-complete genome sequences from 50 healthcare workers and ten patients. Most sequences were grouped in three clusters, with two clusters showing local circulation within the region. The noted patterns were consistent with multiple introductions into the hospitals through community-acquired infections and local amplification in the community.Interpretation Although direct transmission in the hospitals cannot be ruled out, our data do not support widespread nosocomial transmission as the source of infection in patients or health-care workers.

Background. Triazole resistance is an increasing problem in invasive aspergillosis (IA). Small case series show mortality rates of 50%-100% in patients infected with a triazole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, but a direct comparison with triazole-susceptible IA is lacking.Methods. A 5-year retrospective cohort study (2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015) was conducted to compare mortality in patients with voriconazole-susceptible and voriconazole-resistant IA. Aspergillus fumigatus culture-positive patients were investigated to identify patients with proven, probable, and putative IA. Clinical characteristics, day 42 and day 90 mortality, triazole-resistance profiles, and antifungal treatments were investigated.Results. Of 196 patients with IA, 37 (19%) harbored a voriconazole-resistant infection. Hematological malignancy was the underlying disease in 103 (53%) patients, and 154 (79%) patients were started on voriconazole. Compared with voriconazole-susceptible cases, voriconazole resistance was associated with an increase in overall mortality of 21% on day 42 (49% vs 28%; P = .017) and 25% on day 90 (62% vs 37%; P = .0038). In non-intensive care unit patients, a 19% lower survival rate was observed in voriconazole-resistant cases at day 42 (P = .045). The mortality in patients who received appropriate initial voriconazole therapy was 24% compared with 47% in those who received inappropriate therapy (P = .016), despite switching to appropriate antifungal therapy after a median of 10 days.Conclusions. Voriconazole resistance was associated with an excess overall mortality of 21% at day 42 and 25% at day 90 in patients with IA. A delay in the initiation of appropriate antifungal therapy was associated with increased overall mortality.

Background The literature regarding COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) has shown conflicting observations, including survival of CAPA patients not receiving antifungal therapy and discrepancy between CAPA diagnosis and autopsy findings. To gain insight into the pathophysiology of CAPA we performed a case-control study, in which we compared Aspergillus test profiles in CAPA patients and controls in relation to ICU-mortality. Methods A multinational case-control study, in which Aspergillus test results, use of antifungal therapy and mortality were collected from critically-ill COVID-19 patients. Patients were classified using the 2020 ECMM/ISHAM consensus case definitions. Results 219 critically-ill COVID-19 cases were analyzed, including one proven, 38 probable, 19 possible CAPA cases, 21 Aspergillus colonized patients, seven patients only positive for serum (1, 3)-ß-D-glucan (BDG), and 133 cases with no evidence of CAPA. Mortality was 53.8% in CAPA patients compared to 24.1% in patients without CAPA (p=0.001). Positive serum galactomannan (GM) and BDG were associated with increased mortality compared to serum biomarker negative CAPA patients (87.5% versus 41.7%, p=0.046; 90.0% versus 42.1%, p=0.029, respectively). For each point increase in GM or ten-point BDG serum concentration, the odds of death increased (GM, OR 10.208, 95%CI 1.621-64.291, p=0.013; BDG, OR 1.247, 95%CI 1.029-1.511, p=0.024). Conclusions CAPA is a complex disease, probably involving a continuum of respiratory colonization, tissue-invasion and angioinvasion. Serum biomarkers are useful for staging CAPA disease progression and, if positive, indicate angioinvasion and a high probability of mortality. There is need for a biomarker that distinguishes between respiratory tract colonization and tissue invasive CAPA disease.

Background

We describe four secondary fungal infections caused by Mucorales species in COVID-19 patients. Three COVID-19 associated mucormycosis (CAM) occurred in ICU, one outside ICU. All were men aged > 50 years, three died. Clinical presentations included pulmonary, rhino-orbital cerebral and disseminated infection. Infections occurred in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. CAM is an emerging disease and our observations underscore the need to be aware of invasive mucormycosis, including in COVID-19 patients without (poorly controlled) diabetes mellitus and outside ICU.

Introduction: Rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) are suitable for large-scale testing for SARS-CoV-2 among the population and recent studies have shown that self-testing with RDT in the general population is feasible and yields acceptable sensitivities with high specificity. We aimed to determine the accuracy of two different RDT, with two different sample collection methods for one of the RDT among healthcare workers (HCW). Secondary objectives were to determine the accuracy of RDT using a viral load cut-off as proxy of infectiousness and to identify predictors for a false negative RDT. Methods: Centers that participated were secondary care hospitals, academic teaching hospitals, and long-term care facilities. All HCW that met inclusion criteria were asked to perform a RDT self-test next to a regular SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT). Three study groups were created. Study group 1; Veritor™ System, Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, USA (BD-RDT) with combined oropharyngeal - mid-turbinate nasal sampling, group 2; BD-RDT with mid-turbinate nasal sampling only and group 3; SD Biosensor SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test, Roche, Basel, Switzerland (Roche-RDT) with combined oropharyngeal - mid-turbinate nasal sampling. RDT accuracy was calculated using NAAT as reference standard. For samples processed in the cobas® 6800/8800 platform (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), established cycle threshold values (Ct-values) could be converted into viral loads. A viral load cut-off of ≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E gene copies/ml was used as proxy of infectiousness. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors for a false negative RDT. Results: In total, 7,196 HCW were included. Calculated sensitivities were 61.5% (95%CI 56.6%-66.3%), 50.3% (95%CI 42.8%-57.7%) and 74.2% (95%CI 66.4%-80.9%) for study groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. After application of a viral load cut-off as a proxy for infectiousness for samples processed in the cobas® 6800/8800 platform sensitivities increased to 82.2% (95%CI 76.6-86.9%), 61.9% (95%CI 48.8%-73.9%) and 90.2% (95%CI 76.9%-97.3%) for group 1, group 2 and group 3, respectively. Multivariable regression analysis showed that use of Roche-RDT (p <0.01), combined oropharyngeal - mid-turbinate nasal sampling (p <0.05) and the presence of COVID-19 like symptoms at the time of testing (p <0.01) significantly reduced the likeliness of a false-negative RDT result. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 RDT has proven able to identify infectious individuals, especially when upper respiratory specimen is collected through combined oropharyngeal - mid-turbinate sampling. Reliability of self-testing with RDT among HCW seems to depend on the type of RDT, the sampling method and the presence of COVID-19 like symptoms at the time of testing.