Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:People with HIV (PWH) may have numerous risk factors for acquiring Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and developing severe outcomes, but current data are conflicting. METHODS:Healthcare providers enrolled consecutively by non-random sampling PWH with lab-confirmed COVID-19, diagnosed at their facilities between April 1st and July 1st, 2020. De-identified data were entered into an electronic Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). The primary endpoint was severe outcome, defined as a composite endpoint of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, or death. The secondary outcome was the need for hospitalization. RESULTS:286 patients were included; the mean age was 51.4 years (SD, 14.4), 25.9% were female, and 75.4% were African-American or Hispanic. Most patients (94.3%) were on antiretroviral therapy (ART), 88.7% had HIV virologic suppression, and 80.8% had comorbidities. Within 30 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing, 164 (57.3%) patients were hospitalized, and 47 (16.5%) required ICU admission. Mortality rates were 9.4% (27/286) overall, 16.5% (27/164) among those hospitalized, and 51.5% (24/47) among those admitted to an ICU. The primary composite endpoint occurred in 17.5% (50/286) of all patients and 30.5% (50/164) of hospitalized patients. Older age, chronic lung disease, and hypertension were associated with severe outcomes. A lower CD4 count (<200 cells/mm³) was associated with the primary and secondary endpoints. There was no association between the antiretroviral regimen or lack of viral suppression and predefined outcomes. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Severe clinical outcomes occurred commonly in PWH and COVID-19. The risk for poor outcomes was higher in those with comorbidities and lower CD4 cell counts, despite HIV viral suppression.

Timing of detection of immunoglobulin G (IgG), immunoglobulin A (IgA), and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and their use to support the diagnosis are of increasing interest. We used the Gold Standard Diagnostics ELISA to evaluate the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies in sera of 82 hospitalized patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Serum samples were collected 1-59 days post-onset of symptoms (PoS) and we examined the association of age, sex, disease severity, and symptoms' duration with antibody levels. We also tested sera of 100 ambulatory hospital employees with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and samples collected during convalescence, 35-57 days PoS. All but four of the admitted patients (95.1%) developed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Antibodies were detected within 7 days PoS; IgA in 60.0%, IgM in 53.3%, and IgG in 46.7% of samples. IgG positivity increased to 100% on Day 21. We did not observe significant differences in the rate of antibody development in regard to age and sex. IgA levels were highest in patients with a severe and critical illness. In multiple regression analyses, only IgA levels were statistically significantly correlated with critical disease (p = .05) regardless of age, sex, and duration of symptoms. Among 100 ambulatory hospital employees who had antibody testing after 4 weeks PoS only 10% had positive IgA antibodies. The most frequently isolated isotype in sera of employees after 30 days PoS was IgG (88%). IgA was the predominant immunoglobulin in early disease and correlated independently with a critical illness. IgG antibodies remained detectable in almost 90% of samples collected up to two months after infection.

Cutibacterium acnes is an anaerobic bacterium commonly thought of as a culture contaminant rather than a pathogen. We present a case of Cutibacterium acnes pericarditis in a 22-year-old immunocompetent woman managed with surgical pericardial window and a 4-week course of penicillin G and review related literature on Cutibacterium acnes pericarditis.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:It is common among microbiology laboratories to blind the Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) BioFire FilmArray GI Panel result in fear of overdiagnosis. METHODS:We examined the rate of missed community-onset C. difficile infection (CDI) diagnosis and associated outcomes. Adult patients with FilmArray GI Panel positive for C. difficile on hospital admission who lacked dedicated C. difficile testing were included. RESULTS:Among 144 adults with a FilmArray Panel positive for C. difficile, 18 did not have concurrent dedicated C. difficile testing. Eight patients were categorized as possible, 5 as probable and 4 as definite cases of missed CDI diagnosis. We observed associated delays in initiation of appropriate therapy, intensive care unit admissions, hospital readmissions, colorectal surgery and death/discharge to hospice. Five out of 17 lacked risk factors for CDI. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The practice of concealing C. difficile FilmArray GI Panel results needs to be reconsidered in patients presenting with community-onset colitis.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We evaluated the value of BioFire® FilmArray® pneumonia panel in establishing a microbiologic diagnosis of pneumonia. We evaluated opportunities for antimicrobial optimization from its use. METHODS:We included adult patients with pneumonia between May 2019-January 2020. The pneumonia panel was performed on high-quality sputum specimens and the results were prospectively compared with sputum cultures and other tests performed per standard of care. RESULTS:Seventy patients were included, sixty-nine of whom completed a 5-day antimicrobial course for pneumonia and 14.3% died during hospitalization. There was a trend of higher rate of microbiologic diagnosis among the patients with culture submitted before antimicrobial administration (9/15 vs. 20/55; p = 0.09). The panel increased the microbiologic diagnosis from 29/70 to 59/70 (p < 0.001) patients. The per isolate analysis revealed an increase in the isolation of Haemophilus influenzae (p = 0.002) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (p = 0.05). On review of empiric antimicrobials, there was potential for antimicrobial optimization in 56/70 patients, including 9 bacteria among 9 patients, not covered by empiric treatment and another 70 antimicrobials in 49 patients that could have been stopped. CONCLUSIONS:Incorporation of the pneumonia panel in the diagnostic work-up of pneumonia substantially increased the rate of microbiologic diagnosis and revealed abundant opportunities for antimicrobial optimization.

Background: Pneumonia is a leading cause of hospitalization and mortality. Due to the low yield of available diagnostic tests, ATS/IDSA pneumonia guidelines recommend a microbiologic work-up only for hospitalized patients with severe pneumonia.
Method(s): From 5/2019 to 1/2020, we selected adult patients with clinical and radiographic findings highly suggestive of pneumonia. The BioFire FilmArray pneumonia panel was performed on sputum specimens that met quality microbiologic criteria and the results were compared to those of sputum cultures and other tests sent per standard of care. A limit of 105 copies/mL was used for positivity in semi-quantitative bacterial targets. The empiric antimicrobial regimen was reviewed to quantify the potential for antimicrobial optimization.
Result(s): Seventy patients were included in the analysis. Median age was 70 (IQR 53.5-81.75), and the majority (43 patients, 61.4%) were classified as Class IV and V using the pneumonia severity index, indicating severe cases of pneumonia. Sixty-nine patients completed at least a 5-day course for pneumonia and 14.3% died during their hospitalization. The fifteen patients (21.4%) that submitted a sputum culture before the initiation of antimicrobial therapy, had a trend towards a positive sputum culture (60% (9/15) vs 36.4% (20/55)) (p=0.09). The BioFire FilmArray pneumonia Panel increased the number of patients who received a microbiologic diagnosis from 29 (41%) to 59 (84.3%) (p< 0.001). The per isolate analysis revealed significantly more targets detected for Haemophilus influenzae (p=0.002) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (p=0.05). On review of empiric antimicrobial treatment, there was possibility for antimicrobial optimization in 80% of patients, including 9 cases of pathogens (4 MRSA, 3 Legionella pneumophila, 2 CTX-M gram-negative rods) where the pathogens were not covered and another 70 antimicrobials in 49 patients that could be stopped. Flow chart Bacterial Pathogens Detected in Standard of Care Alone Testing and with the Addition of Pneumonia Panel. Potential for Antimicrobial Optimization Using the Pneumonia Panel
Conclusion(s): Incorporation of the pneumonia panel in the diagnostic work-up of patients hospitalized with pneumonia substantially increased the rate of microbiologic diagnosis and had the potential to guide appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Future studies to quantify the effects on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness from tailored therapy are needed