5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Characterizing coinfection in children with COVID-19: A dual center retrospective analysis

      letter

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To the Editor—Understanding the prevalence of coinfections with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is crucial to delineating its true clinical impact. Numerous studies have evaluated coinfections in adults with COVID–19, 1-3 but data on pediatric COVID-19 coinfections are limited. Here, we evaluate the burden of coinfections in pediatric COVID-19 patients at 2 large Chicagoland medical centers. Methods We retrospectively reviewed electronic health records of all pediatric patients tested for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from March 9, 2020, through April 30, 2020, in 2 Chicagoland medical centers. At the University of Chicago Medicine, SARS-CoV-2 was diagnosed using one of the following real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays on respiratory specimens: Cobas SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay (Roche Basel, Switzerland) or Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA). Respiratory coinfections were primarily identified using a multiplex RT-PCR respiratory viral panel (RVP) with the following targets: adenovirus, coronavirus 229E/HKU1/NL63/OC43, human metapneumovirus, influenza-A/-B, parainfluenzas 1–4, respiratory syncytial virus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Bordetella pertussis, and rhinovirus/enterovirus (FilmArray Respiratory Panel, BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, UT). Coinfections were also identified using the influenza/respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) RT-PCR assay (Cepheid Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV) known as the influenza/RSV panel (IRP). At NorthShore University HealthSystem, SARS-CoV-2 was identified similarly using RT-PCR: Xpert Xpress or BD Max (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ). Coinfections were detected using a multiplex RT-PCR panel that contained only the viral targets of the RVP (GenMark Dx, GenMark Diagnostics, Carlsbad, CA), as well as an IRP (Roche Cobas Liat Influenza A/B and RSV). We included all RVPs and IRPs that were obtained within 7 days of a SARS-CoV-2 test. We also reviewed antibiotic prescriptions within 7 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result, and we evaluated antibiotic indication to confirm whether bacterial coinfection was present. Combined means, frequencies, and standard deviations were calculated from the 2 subgroups of data. The Fisher exact test was used to detect any significant differences in proportions of coinfection between the SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative groups. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05. Stata version 16 software (StataCorp, College Station, TX) was used for all analyses. Results During the study period, 3,669 specimens were sent for SARS-CoV-2 testing, and 862 of these (23.4%) were positive. Furthermore, 767 (20.9%) specimens had a paired RVP or IRP within 7 days. Of these paired specimens, 101 (13.2%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. The average ages of our aggregate pediatric COVID cohort and the coinfected subgroup were 17.1 years (standard deviation 5.79) and 17 years (standard deviation, 5.11), respectively. Analyses between RSV/influenza and the rest of the respiratory viral pathogen panel were conducted separately given the large number of IRPs performed (ie, 351 total multiplex RVPs and 424 total RSV/influenza IRPs). Only 2 paired specimens containing the RVP (12.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and an additional respiratory pathogen (Table 1). In 1 of these 2 patients, 2 viral pathogens on the RVP (rhino/enterovirus and adenovirus) were detected. Of those who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 who had the RVP, 130 (38.8%) tested positive for at least 1 pathogen, excluding RSV and influenza. The most common pathogen isolated was rhino/enterovirus (23.3%). Specimens positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a paired RVP were significantly less likely to be positive for any other respiratory pathogen than specimens that were negative for SARS-CoV-2 (P = .036). Only 2 (2.0%) paired specimens tested positive for both SARS-CoV-2 and either RSV or influenza, whereas 39 paired specimens (5.9%) that were positive for either RSV or influenza tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (Table 1). No association was found between individual respiratory pathogens and SARS-CoV-2 status. Table 1. Proportions of Positive Respiratory Viral Pathogens Stratified by SARS-CoV-2 Variable SARS-CoV-2 Positive, no. (%) SARS-CoV-2 Negative, no. (%) P Value b Patients undergoing multiplex RVP testing a (n = 16) (n = 335) Positive for any respiratory pathogen 2 (12.5) 130 (38.8) .036  Adenovirus 1 (6.3) 24 (7.2)  Coronavirus 229E 0 (0.0) 2 (0.6)  Coronavirus HKU1 0 (0.0) 2 (0.6)  Coronavirus NL63 0 (0.0) 11 (3.3)  Coronavirus OC43 0 (0.0) 5 (1.5)  Human metapneumovirus 0 (0.0) 25 (7.5)  Parainfluenza 1 0 (0.0) 2 (0.6)  Parainfluenza 2 0 (0.0) 2 (0.6)  Parainfluenza 3 0 (0.0) 1 (0.3)  Parainfluenza 4 0 (0.0) 3 (0.9)  Mycoplasma pneumoniae 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  Chlamydophila pneumoniae 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)  Bordetella pertussis 0 (0.0) 1 (0.3) c  Rhino/enterovirus 2 (12.5) 78 (23.3) Patients tested for RSV and influenza (n = 101) (n = 666) Positive for RSV or influenza 2 (2.0) 39 (5.9) .151  Influenza A 1 (1.0) 4 (0.6)  Influenza B 0 (0.0) 12 (1.8)  Respiratory syncytial virus 1 (1.0) 25 (3.8) Note. RSV, respiratory syncytial virus; RVP, respiratory viral panel. a RSV and influenza analyzed separately given large volume of RSV/influenza (IRP) tests. b Statistical significance determined by the Fisher exact test. Every individually stratified respiratory pathogen had P > .05. c Bacterial targets were not included in a minority of multiplex RT-PCR tests performed on GenMark Dx. The denominator for these targets is 323. Among all pediatric patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, without respect to having a paired RVP/IRP, there were 35 patients (4%) who received antibiotics within 7 days before and after the SARS-CoV-2 assay. Among these patients, only 8 of 35 COVID-19 patients (23%) receiving antibiotics had an indication of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), and streptococcal pharyngitis (12 of 35, 34%) was the most common non-LRTI indication. Discussion Recent reports have shown pediatric COVID-19 coinfection rates as high as 51%. 4,5 However, our dual-center study revealed that viral coinfection rates in pediatric COVID-19 patients are low. This analysis was performed at a time of year when respiratory viral transmission, most notably influenza, was declining. During the study period, the Illinois Department of Public Health tracked a decrease in positive influenza tests from 14.9% for the week ending March 14, 2020, to 1.8% for the week ending April 25, 2020. 6 The stay-at-home order issued in the state of Illinois on March 9, 2020, also may have played a role in the reduction of seasonal respiratory viral transmission. 7 During seasons of low rates of respiratory viral transmission, our data suggest that testing for other viruses among COVID-19 patients may not be warranted. A recent review suggested that antibiotic usage in COVID-19 patients reached 72%. 8 Antibiotic prescription rates in our pediatric cohort were much lower, suggesting that bacterial coinfection is less likely in pediatric COVID-19 patients. Additionally, antibiotic indications were rarely for lower respiratory tract infection. The most common indication was streptococcal pharyngitis, which may have been incidental. The limitations of this study include the lack of stratification between inpatients and outpatients, as well as stratification between different age groups because both may impact coinfection rates. Our findings suggest that viral coinfections in pediatric patients with SARS-CoV-2 likely correlate with general respiratory infection rates. However, more longitudinal studies that span the entire viral respiratory season are needed to clarify the rate of secondary infections in this population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Co-infections in people with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

          Highlights • SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID19 disease, has spread globally since late 2019 • Bacterial coinfections associated with mortality in previous influenza pandemics • Proportion of COVID19 patients with bacterial coinfection less than in flu pandemics • Higher proportion of critically-ill with bacterial coinfections than in mixed setting • Bacterial co-pathogen profiles different to those in influenza co-infections • Fungal coinfection diagnosis difficult so high level suspicion in critically-ill
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Bacterial and fungal co-infection in individuals with coronavirus: A rapid review to support COVID-19 antimicrobial prescribing

            Abstract Background To explore and describe the current literature surrounding bacterial/fungal co-infection in patients with coronavirus infection. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched using broad based search criteria relating to coronavirus and bacterial co-infection. Articles presenting clinical data for patients with coronavirus infection (defined as SARS-1, MERS, SARS-COV-2, and other coronavirus) and bacterial/fungal co-infection reported in English, Mandarin, or Italian were included. Data describing bacterial/fungal co-infections, treatments, and outcomes were extracted. Secondary analysis of studies reporting antimicrobial prescribing in SARS-COV-2 even in the absence of co-infection was performed. Results 1007 abstracts were identified. Eighteen full texts reported bacterial/fungal co-infection were included. Most studies did not identify or report bacterial/fungal coinfection (85/140;61%). 9/18 (50%) studies reported on COVID-19, 5/18 (28%) SARS-1, 1/18 (6%) MERS, and 3/18 (17%) other coronavirus. For COVID-19, 62/806 (8%) patients were reported as experiencing bacterial/fungal co-infection during hospital admission. Secondary analysis demonstrated wide use of broad-spectrum antibacterials, despite a paucity of evidence for bacterial coinfection. On secondary analysis, 1450/2010 (72%) of patients reported received antimicrobial therapy. No antimicrobial stewardship interventions were described. For non-COVID-19 cases bacterial/fungal co-infection was reported in 89/815 (11%) of patients. Broad-spectrum antibiotic use was reported. Conclusions Despite frequent prescription of broad-spectrum empirical antimicrobials in patients with coronavirus associated respiratory infections, there is a paucity of data to support the association with respiratory bacterial/fungal co-infection. Generation of prospective evidence to support development of antimicrobial policy and appropriate stewardship interventions specific for the COVID-19 pandemic are urgently required.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Rates of Co-infection Between SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Pathogens

              This study describes the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 co-infection with noncoronavirus respiratory pathogens in a sample of symptomatic patients undergoing PCR testing in March 2020.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
                Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
                ICE
                Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
                Cambridge University Press (New York, USA )
                0899-823X
                1559-6834
                23 September 2020
                : 1-3
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Pediatrics, Section of Pediatric Infectious Disease, University of Chicago Medicine , Chicago, Illinois
                [2 ]Division of Infectious Disease, NorthShore University HealthSystem , Evanston, Illinois
                [3 ]Department of Medicine, Section of Infectious Disease and Global Health, University of Chicago Medicine , Chicago, IL
                Author notes
                Author for correspondence: David D. Zhang, MD, Pediatric Infectious Disease, University of Chicago Medicine , 5837 S. Maryland Ave, MC 6054, Chicago, IL 60637. E-mail: David.zhang2@ 123456uchospitals.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4125-2506
                Article
                S0899823X20012210
                10.1017/ice.2020.1221
                7545240
                32962785
                2ec790c0-0281-422a-8e7a-2253b0fb0fec
                © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2020

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 14 August 2020
                : 31 August 2020
                : 07 September 2020
                Page count
                Tables: 1, References: 8, Pages: 3
                Categories
                Letter to the Editor

                Comments

                Comment on this article