No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background The detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in respiratory samples collected from persons recovered from COVID-19 does not necessarily indicate shedding of infective virions. By contrast, the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 using cell-based culture likely indicates infectivity, but there are limited data on the correlation between SARS-CoV-2 culture and PCR. Methods One hundred and ninety-five patients with varying severity of COVID-19 were tested (outpatients [n=178]), inpatients [n=12] and critically unwell patients admitted to the intensive care unit [ICU; n=5]). SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive samples were cultured in Vero C1008 cells and inspected daily for cytopathic effect (CPE). SARS-CoV-2-induced CPE was confirmed by PCR of culture supernatant. Where no CPE was observed, PCR was performed on day four to confirm absence of virus replication. Cycle threshold (Ct) of the day four PCR (Ctculture) and the PCR of the original clinical sample (Ctsample) were compared, and positive cultures were defined where Ctsample - Ctculture was ≥3. Findings Of 234 samples collected, 228 (97%) were from the upper respiratory tract. SARS-CoV-2 was only successfully isolated from samples with Ctsample ≤32, including in 28/181 (15%), 19/42 (45%) and 9/11 samples (82%) collected from outpatients, inpatients, and ICU patients, respectively. The mean duration from symptom onset to culture positivity was 4.5 days (range 0-18). SARS-CoV-2 was significantly more likely to be isolated from samples collected from inpatients (p<0∙001) and ICU patients (p<0∙0001) compared with outpatients respectively, and in samples with lower Ctsample. Conclusion SARS-CoV-2 culture may be used as a surrogate marker for infectivity and inform de-isolation protocols.

The incidence of serious fungal infections is increasing rapidly, and yet the rate of new drugs becoming available to treat them is slow. The limited therapeutic armamentarium is a challenge for clinicians, because the available drugs are often toxic, expensive, difficult to administer, ineffective or a combination of all four. Given this setting, the emergence of resistance is especially concerning, and a review of the topic is timely. Here we discuss antifungal drug resistance in Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp. with reference to the most commonly used first-line antifungal agents – azoles and echinocandins. We review the resistance mechanisms of the leading pathogens, how resistance can be identified in the diagnostic lab and the clinical implications of resistance once detected.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can become complicated by secondary invasive fungal infections (IFIs), stemming primarily from severe lung damage and immunologic deficits associated with the virus or immunomodulatory therapy. Other risk factors include poorly controlled diabetes, structural lung disease and/or other comorbidities, and fungal colonization. Opportunistic IFI following severe respiratory viral illness has been increasingly recognized, most notably with severe influenza. There have been many reports of fungal infections associated with COVID-19, initially predominated by pulmonary aspergillosis, but with recent emergence of mucormycosis, candidiasis, and endemic mycoses. These infections can be challenging to diagnose and are associated with poor outcomes. The reported incidence of IFI has varied, often related to heterogeneity in patient populations, surveillance protocols, and definitions used for classification of fungal infections. Herein, we review IFI complicating COVID-19 and address knowledge gaps related to epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of COVID-19–associated fungal infections.