Do Positive Anaerobic Culture Results Affect Physicians\u27 Clinical Management Decisions?

BACKGROUND: Aerobic and anaerobic cultures from body fluids, abscesses, and wounds are ordered routinely. Prior studies have shown that the results of anaerobic blood cultures do not frequently lead to changes in patient management. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review to determine whether positive results of anaerobic tissue and fluid cultures (excluding blood) affect physicians\u27 treatment approaches. Of 3234 anaerobic cultures, 174 unique patient admissions had positive cultures and met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Only 18% (n = 31) of patient charts with positive cultures had documented physician acknowledgment (90.3% of acknowledgments by infectious diseases physicians), with 9% (n = 15) leading to change in antibiotic regimens based on results. Seventy percent of all patients received initial empiric antibiotics active against anaerobes. Of the remaining 30% (inappropriate, unknown, or no empiric coverage), 1 regimen change was documented after culture results were known. CONCLUSIONS: Given the lack of management change based on results of anaerobic wound cultures, the value of routine anaerobic culturing is of questionable utility

Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes of Candidemia Associated with Severe COVID-19

COVID-19 can cause serious illness requiring multimodal treatment and is associated with secondary infections. Studies have suggested an increased risk of fungal infections, including candidemia following severe COVID-19 though understanding of risk factors and clinical outcomes remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To describe clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors of candidemia among patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, case-control study of patients with severe COVID-19 was conducted to evaluate risk factors and clinical outcomes in patients who developed candidemia between August 2020 and August 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Chart review evaluating institutional and patient demographics, clinical and mycological characteristics, concomitant interventions (antibiotics, immunosuppressive agents, parenteral nutrition, degree of oxygen support, mechanical ventilation, surgery), treatment regimens, and outcomes (length of stay and discharge disposition) RESULTS: A total of 275 patients were enrolled in the study, including 91 patients with severe COVID-19 and subsequent candidemia and 184 with severe COVID-19 without candidemia. Most patients received antibiotics prior to candidemia episode (93%), while approximately one-quarter of patients received biologic for COVID-19. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the cases compared with the controls (68% vs 40%; p < 0.01). Candida albicans was the most common (53%), followed by C. glabrata (19%). Use of central lines, biologic, and paralytics were independent risk factors for candidemia. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Candidemia following COVID-19 infection is a concern that requires clinical consideration and patient monitoring. Risk factors for the development of candidemia in the setting of COVID-19 infection are largely consistent with traditional risk factors for candidemia in hospitalized patients

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health