How long should my patient recovering from Covid-19 remain on isolation precautions?

For the great majority of patients with Covid-19, the risk of shedding viable SARS-CoV2 diminishes considerably as the time from onset of symptoms nears 10 days or more, with the risk higher among those who have severe (eg, sp02 <94%)  or critical disease (eg, in need of ICU care) or who are immunocompromised. 1-4  

For patients with mild-moderate illness who are not immunocompromised, the CDC recommends isolation for “at least 10 days” from onset of symptoms as long as at least 24 hours have passed since last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications and symptoms  (eg, cough, shortness of breath) have improved.  For patients with severe to critical illness or who are severely immunocompromised, “at least 10 days” and up to 20 days since onset of symptoms—with qualifications as above— is recommended. 1

A 2021 meta-analysis found that although SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool samples may be prolonged, duration of viable virus was relatively short with no study detecting live virus beyond day 9 of illness.2

In contrast, another study involving patients with severe or critical illness (23% immunocompromised, 2/3 on mechanical ventilation) found  that the median time of infectious virus shedding was 8 days (range 0-20) and concluded that detection of infectious virus was common after 8 days or more since onset of symptoms; the probability of isolating infectious SARS-CoV-2 was  ≤5% when the duration of symptoms was 15.2 days (95% CI 13.4-17.2). In the same study, a single patient had infectious particles for up to 20 days following onset of symptoms. 3

The take home point is that although 10 days of isolation since onset of symptoms should be sufficient for mild to moderate Covid-19, for those with severe or critical disease or immunocompromised state, a longer duration up to 20 days may be needed.  The setting and status of the potential contacts (eg, an immunocompromised person in household setting) should also be considered in our decision making. 4

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that infectious particles are unlikely to be isolated from respiratory tract samples once patients develop a serum neutralizing antibody titer of at least 1:80, potentially useful information in deciding when a patient may come off isolation? 3

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 

References

  1. Discontinuation of transmission-based precautions and disposition of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare settings. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/disposition-hospitalized-patients.html#definitions. Accessed March 24, 2021
  2. Cevik M, Tate M, Lloyd O, et al. Sars-Cov-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV viral load dynamics, duration of viral shedding, and infectiousness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Microbe 2021;2:e13-22. https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanmic/PIIS2666-5247(20)30172-5.pdf
  3. Van Kampen JJA, van de Vijver DAMC, Fraaij PLA, et al. Duration and key determinants of infectious virus shedding in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Nature Communications 2021;12:267. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20568-4
  4. Kadire SR, Fabre V, Wenzel RP. Doctor, how long should I isolate? NEJM, March 2021 https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMclde2100910?articleTools=true

 

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis or its affiliate healthcare centers. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

How long should my patient recovering from Covid-19 remain on isolation precautions?

My elderly patient has a WBC count of 60,000 without obvious hematologic malignancy.  How likely is it that his leukocytosis is related to an infection?

Although extremely high WBC count in the absence of myeloproliferative disease may be associated with solid tumors and other causes, infections are often the most common cause of leukemoid reaction (LR), including tuberculosis, Clostridiodes difficile colitis, shigellosis, salmonellosis, pneumonia, abscesses, as well as  parasitic infections (eg, malaria), fungal infections (mucormycosis), and viral diseases (eg, HIV, EBV, Chickungunya fever).1-4   

In a study of 173 hospitalized patients (mean age 69 y) with leukemoid reaction (defined in this study as WBC ≥30,000/µl), infection was the most common cause of LR (48%), followed by tissue ischemia/stress (28%), inflammation (eg, pancreatitis, diverticulitis without perforation) and obstetric diagnoses (7% each) and malignant tumor (5%).1 

In the same study, the most common infections were “sepsis”, pneumonia and urinary tract infections.  Bacteremia was documented in 13%, while Clostridiodes difficile toxin assay was positive in 7% of patients.  The highest WBC counts were observed in patients with either a positive blood culture or positive C. difficile toxin.  In-hospital mortality rate was very high at 62%.

Similarly, in a study involving 105 hospitalized patients, the most common cause was infection, followed by malignancy and other causes. 2 In a smaller study of 25 patients with “extreme” leukocytosis (defined as WBC ≥50,000/µl) infection was considered the cause in 52% and malignancy in 44% of patients; about one-third were bacteremic (eg, Pseudomonas sp, Streptococcus pneumoniae, E. coli).3

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that besides infections and malignancy, drugs (eg, corticosteroids, epinephrine) and ingestion of ethylene glycol have also been associated with LR? 1,3,4

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Potasman I, Grupper M. Leukemoid reaction:Spectrum and prognosis of 173 adult patients. Clin Infect Dis 2013;57:e177-81. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23994818/
  2. Portich JP, Faulhaber GAM. Leudemoid reaction: A 21st-century study. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31765058/
  3. Halkes CJM, Dijstelbloem HM, Eelman Rooda SJ, et al. Extreme leucocytosis: not always leukaemia. The Netherlands J Med 2007;65:248-51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17656811/
  4. Kumar P, Charaniya R, Sahoo R, et al. Leukemoid reaction in Chickungunya fever. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10:OD05-OD06. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4948452/

 

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis or its affiliate healthcare centers. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

My elderly patient has a WBC count of 60,000 without obvious hematologic malignancy.  How likely is it that his leukocytosis is related to an infection?

“I go after Streptococcus pneumoniae and many other bacteria causing community-acquired pneumonia with vengeance but lately I have had a hard time keeping up with many gram-negatives, including some E. coli. Who am I?”

Additional hint: “The latest FDA warning against the use of my class of drugs has to do with increased risk of ruptures or tears in the aorta in certain patients, including the elderly and those with hypertension, aortic aneurysm or peripheral vascular disease.” 

Editor’s note: This post is part of the P4P “Talking Therapeutics” series designed to make learning about antibiotics fun. Individual antibiotics give a short description of themselves and you are asked to guess their names. Antimicrobial spectrum, common uses and potential adverse effects follow. Enjoy!

And the answer is…… HERE

Selected antimicrobial spectrum

                Gram-positives: Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus                         (some resistance even in MSSA), Enterococcus spp (urine;some resistance)

                Gram-negatives: Enterics (eg, E. coli, Klebsiella spp), Pseudomonas spp,                                 Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, H. influenzae, some ESBLs.

                 AVOID: MRSA, anaerobes

Common clinical uses: community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), healthcare-associated pneumonia (HAP), urinary tract infections (UTIs), legionnaire’s disease, abdominal infection (plus anaerobic coverage)

WATCH OUT! QT prolongation, C. difficile, central nervous system toxicity, seizures, myasthenia gravis, peripheral neuropathy, tendinopathy, drug interactions (eg. warfarin), and most recently aortic aneurysm diagnosis/dissection!

Remember the key features of levofloxacin before you prescribe it!

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Selected references

  1. FDA. FDA warns about increased risk of ruptures or tears in the aorta blood vessel with fluoroquinolone antibiotics in certain patients.  https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-warns-about-increased-risk-ruptures-or-tears-aorta-blood-vessel-fluoroquinolone-antibiotics. Accessed Nov 26, 2020,.
  2. Marangon FB, Miller D, Muallem MS, et al. Ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin resistance among methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus isolates from keratitis and conjunctivitis. Am J Ophthal 2004;137:453-58. https://www.ajo.com/article/S0002-9394(03)01287-X/pdf
  3. Yasufuku T, Shigemura K, Shirakawa T, et al. Mechanisms of and risk factors for fluoroquinolone resistance in clinical Enterococcus faecalis from patients with urinary tract infections. J Clin Microbiol 2011;49:3912-16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209098/
  4.  Rawla P, Helou MLE, Vellipuram AR. Fluoroquinolones and the risk of aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Hematol Agents Med Chem 2019;17:3-10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6865049/

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis or its affiliate healthcare centers. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

“I go after Streptococcus pneumoniae and many other bacteria causing community-acquired pneumonia with vengeance but lately I have had a hard time keeping up with many gram-negatives, including some E. coli. Who am I?”

How effective are face masks in reducing transmission of Covid-19?

Overall, review of data to date suggests that face masks are quite effective in reducing the transmission of coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19. A Lancet 2020 meta-analysis involving over 12,000 subjects, found that transmission of coronaviruses (SARS-CoV-2, SARS and MERS) was reduced with face masks by 85% (adjusted O.R. 0.15, 95%CI 0.07-0.34).1

More specific to Covid-19, a study from Mass General Brigham hospitals found a significant drop in healthcare worker (HCW) SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate from 21.3% to 11.5% following adoption of universal masking of HCWs and patients.2

An U.S. epidemiologic survey of 2,930 unique counties plus New York City found mandating face mask use in public was associated with a significant decline in the daily Covid-19 growth rate. 3 It was estimated that more than 200,000 Covid-19 cases were averted by May 22, 2020 as a result of the implementation of these mandates.

Another 2020 meta-analysis involving 21 studies reported an overall efficacy of masks (including surgical and N-95 masks) of 80% in healthcare workers and 47% in non-healthcare workers for respiratory virus transmission (including SARS, SARS-CoV-2 and influenza).4

A criticism of above reports has been their primarily retrospective nature. A randomized-controlled Danish study found a statistically insignificant 20% reduction in incident SARS-CoV-2 infection among mask wearers (5,6).    Despite its randomized-controlled design, this study had several limitations, including relatively low transmission rate in the community and lack of universal mask wearing in public during the study period. In addition, less than one-half of participants in the mask group reported adherence to wearing masks, and there was no assurance that masks were worn correctly when they did wear them. 

At most, this study suggests that it’s not enough for the uninfected to wear masks; the infected—often with little or no symptoms— should also wear them to help curb the pandemic.

So please do your part and tell your friends and family members to do the same by masking up while we are at war with Covid-19!

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that universal wearing of masks in the public in response to a respiratory virus pandemic is nothing new?  It was adopted as far back as 100 years ago during the 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic!

References

  1. Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020;395: 1973-87. https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9.pdf
  2. Wang X, Ferro EG, Zhou G, et al. Association between universal masking in a health care system and SARS-CoV-2 positivity among health care workers. JAMA 2020;324:703-4. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768533
  3. Lyu W, Wehby GL. Community use of face masks and COVID-19: evidence from a natural experiment of state mandates in the US. Health Affairs 2020;39: July 16. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
  4. Liang M, Gao L, Cheng Ce, et al. Efficacy of face mask in preventing respiratory virus transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Med Infect Dis 2020;36:1-8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473312/ 
  5. Bundgaard H, Bundgaard JS, Tadeusz DE, et al. Effectiveness of adding a mask recommendation to other public health measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in Danish mask wearers. Ann Intern Med 2020; November 18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205991/
  6. Frieden TR Cash-Goldwasser S. Of masks and methods. Ann Intern Med 2020; November 18. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-7499

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis or its affiliate healthcare centers. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

How effective are face masks in reducing transmission of Covid-19?

What’s the connection between break rooms and transmission of Covid-19 in health care settings?

Emerging data suggest that healthcare workers (HCWs) may be at increased risk of Covid-19 in break rooms when consuming food or when in the presence of others without a mask.1-4

In a study of over 700 HCWs screened for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR at a university hospital, staying in the same personnel break room as an HCW without a medical mask for more than 15 min and consuming food within 1 meter of an HCW were significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.1 Consumption of food in break rooms by personnel was thereafter “forbidden” in this facility. Interestingly, 28% of infected personnel in this study lacked symptoms at the time of testing.

A recent outbreak at a Boston hospital involving both patients and HCWs months after institution of strict infection control measures (including universal masking of visitors and HCWs and PCR testing of all patients on admission) traced the outbreak to a variety of factors, including HCWs eating in crowded work rooms.2,3

A CDC study of risk factors among adults 18 years or older with Covid-19 in the community identified dining at a restaurant as significant risk factors for Covid-19.4

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during eating or drinking is not surprising because masks cannot be effectively worn during food consumption. Combine eating or drinking with talking, laughing and suboptimal ventilation system and we have all the elements of perfect storm for transmission of Covid-19 during food breaks.

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that, in addition to dining at a restaurant, patients with Covid-19 without known close contact with infected persons have reported higher likelihood of going to bar/coffee shop? 4

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

 

  1. Celebi G, Piskin N, Beklevic AC, et al. Specific risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission among health care workers in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control 2020;48:1225-30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32771498/
  2. Freyer FJ. Brigham and Women’s hospital completes investigation of coronavirus outbreak. Boston Globe, October 19, 2020. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/10/19/metro/brigham-womens-hospital-completes-investigation-coronavirus-outbreak/
  3. Freyer FJ. At the Brigham, “battle-weary” staff may have allowed virus to slip in. Boston Globe, September 24, 2020. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/09/24/metro/brigham-womens-hospital-reports-cluster-10-covid-19-cases/
  4. Fisher KA, Tenforde MW, Felstein LR, et al. Community and close contact exposures associated with COVID-19 among symptomatic adults ≥18 years in 11 outpatient health care facilities—United States, July 2020. MMWR 2020;69:1258-64. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7499837/

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis or its affiliates. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

 

 

What’s the connection between break rooms and transmission of Covid-19 in health care settings?

How long should I expect Legionella urine antigen test to remain positive after diagnosis of legionnaire’s disease in my patient with pneumonia?

The urine antigen test for detection of Legionnaire’s disease (LD) can remain positive for weeks or months after initial infection. So a positive test in a patient with pneumonia may not just be suggestive of an acute infection but also the diagnosis of LD during recent weeks or months (1,2).

In a study of Legionella urine antigen detection as a function of days after onset of symptoms, 11 of 11 (100%) patients tested remained positive after day 14 (1). In the same study, 10 of 23 (43%) patients excreted antigen for 42 days or longer following initiation of therapy, with some patients remaining positive for more than 200 days!

In another study involving 61 patients with Legionella pneumophila pneumonia, 25% excreted Legionella antigen for 60 or more days (2). Longer duration of antigen excretion was significantly associated with immunosuppressed patients in whom the time to resolution of fever was > 72 h.

The long duration of excretion of Legionella antigen in urine following LD is not surprising. Pneumococcal pneumonia has also been associated with prolonged antigen excretion, some for as long as 6 months after diagnosis of pneumonia (3). It is thought that some microbial polysaccharides may be degraded very slowly or not at all by mammalian tissues which could explain their prolonged appearance in the urine long after active infection has resolved (1).

Bonus pearl: Did you know that the sensitivity of Legionella urinary antigen for LD varies from 94% for travel-associated infections to 76%-87% for community-acquired infection, and to as low as ~45% for nosocomially-acquired infections (4)?

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Kohler RB, Winn WC, Wheat J. Onset and duration of urinary antigen excretion in Legionnaires disease. J Clin Microbiol 1984;20:605-7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6490846/
  2. Sopena N, Sabria M, Pedro-Bolet ML, et al. Factors related to persistence of Legionella urinary antigen excretion in patients with legionnaire’s disease. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2002;21:845-48. https://europepmc.org/article/med/12525918
  3. Andreo F, Prat C, Ruiz-Manzano J, et al. Persistence of Streptococcus pneumoniae urinary antigen excretion after pneumococcal pneumonia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2009;28:197-201. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18830727/
  4. Helbig JH, Uldum SA, Bernander S, et al. Clinical utility of urinary antigen detection for diagnosis of community-acquired, travel-associated, and nosocomial Legionnaire’s disease. Clin Microbiol 2003;41:838-40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12574296/

 

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

How long should I expect Legionella urine antigen test to remain positive after diagnosis of legionnaire’s disease in my patient with pneumonia?

How might measuring viral load in respiratory specimens be helpful clinically in patients with Covid-19?

Although far from being perfect, there are emerging scientific data that suggest measuring viral load in respiratory specimens of patients with Covid-19 could be helpful in at least 2 ways: 1. Help determine who may be infectious (therefore isolated or undergo contact tracing); and 2. Identify patients at high risk for severe disease and death (1-4).

In a study involving 3,790 nasopharyngeal samples testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR, a significant correlation was found between isolation of the virus by culture—therefore potential contagiousness—and viral load determined by cycle threshold (CT) (ie, the number of cycles needed to detect the virus with higher numbers thought to be associated with lower risk of contagion) (2). Some have suggested that patients with CT above 33-34 are no longer contagious (3).

In another study involving 978 patients with Covid-19, high viral load in nasopharyngeal specimens was associated with higher risk of intubation (O.R. 2.7, 1.7-4.4), and mortality (6.1, 2.9-12.5) (4).

In addition, simultaneous presence of high viral loads in the respiratory specimens in the population suggests an expanding outbreak, while low viral loads may imply that the outbreak is waning (1).

Some have cautioned against over-reliance on viral loads in Covid-19 due to factors such as variation in the technique of obtaining specimens and testing instruments (5).

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 

References
1. Service RF. Covid-19. A call for diagnostic tests to report viral load. Science 2020, October 2;370:22. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/one-number-could-help-reveal-how-infectious-covid-19-patient-should-test-results
2. Jaafar R, Aherfi S, Wurtz N, et al. Correlation between 3790 qPCR positives samples and positive cell cultures including 1941 SARS-CoV-2 isolates. Clin Infect Dis 2020, September. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32986798/
3. La Scola B, Le Bideau M, Andreani J, et al. Viral RNA as determined by cell culture as a management tool for discharge of SARS-CoV-2 patients from infectious disease wards. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2020;39:1059-1061. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32342252/
4. Magleby R, Westblade LF, Trzebucki A, et al. Impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral load on risk of intubation and mortality among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Clin Infect Dis 2020. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa851/5865363
5. Rhoads D, Peaper DR, She RC, et al. College of American Pathologists (CAP) Microbiology Committee perspective: caution must be used in interpreting the cycle threshold (Ct) value. Clin Infect Dis 12 August, 2020. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1199/5891762

 

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

How might measuring viral load in respiratory specimens be helpful clinically in patients with Covid-19?

Why would my patient with Covid-19 infection test negative by PCR?

There are several potential reasons why someone who is infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the agent of Covid-19, may test negative by PCR. These including the threshold for detection of virus (which can vary among different manufacturers from as low as 100 viral copies/ml to >6,000 copies/ml),1 timing of the sample collection with respect to infection stage (lowest false-negative rate [~20%] on day 3 of symptoms or 8 days post-infection),specimen storage and transport and, particularly in the case of nasopharyngeal specimens, the adequacy of the sample obtained. 3

Suboptimal specimen collection from nasopharynx has long been suspected as an explanation for false-negative PCR tests in patients who subsequently have a positive test or are highly suspected of having Covid-19, but without any good support data. Until now…

A clever study looked at the presence of human DNA recovered from nasopharyngeal swabs as a marker for adequate specimen collection quality and found that human DNA levels were significantly lower in samples from patients with confirmed or suspected Covid-19 that yielded negative results compared to those of representative pool of samples submitted for Covid-19 testing.3

Interestingly, major commercial assays do not include any internal controls that ensure adequate sampling before testing for SARS-CoV2.

A typical microbiology lab can reject a sputum culture if gram-stain suggests poor quality specimen (eg, saliva only) but it looks like no similar rule exists for nasopharyngeal PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 through commercial labs. Apparently, the US-CDC diagnostic panel does include a human RNAseP RNA-specific primer/probe set but the interpretation criteria for this control may also be too liberal.3

For these reasons, in patients highly suspected of having Covid-19 but with a negative initial PCR test, a repeat test on the same day or next 2 days is recommended.4

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 

References

  1. Prinzi A. False negatives and refinfections: the challenges of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. Available at https://asm.org/Articles/2020/April/False-Negatives-and-Reinfections-the-Challenges-of     Accessed October 5, 2020.
  2. Kucirka LM, Lauer SA, Laeyendecker O, et al. Variation in false-negative rate of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction-based SARS-CoV-2 tests by time since exposure. Ann Intern Med 2020 May 13:M20-1495. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7240870/
  3. Kinloch NN, Ritchie G, Brumme CJ, et al. Suboptimal biological sampling as a probable cause of false-negative COVID-19 diagnostic test results. J Infect Dis 2020;222:899-902. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/6/899/5864227
  4. Green DA, Zucker J, Westbade LF, et al. Clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing. J Clin Microbiol 2020. DOI:10.1128/JCM.00995-20. https://jcm.asm.org/content/58/8/e00995-20

 

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

Why would my patient with Covid-19 infection test negative by PCR?

Why are antibiotics routinely administered in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleed?

Antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB) reduce bacterial infections, all-cause mortality, bacterial infection, mortality, rebleeding events and hospitalization.1

A 2011 Cochrane meta-analysis involving 12 trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis to no prophylaxis or placebo found reduction in bacterial infection (RR 0.35, 95% C.I., 0.26-0.47) and overall mortality (RR 0.79, 95% C.I. 0.63-0.98). It also found a significant reduction in rebleeding and days of hospitalization, based on more limited data. Trials in this meta-analysis involved a variety of antibiotics, including norfloxacin, ciprofloxacin, cefazolin, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone and ampicillin-sulbactam. 1

So why is ceftriaxone the often-favored bacterial prophylaxis in UGIB? First, infections in cirrhotic patients often originate from bacterial translocation through the GI tract with aerobic gram-negative GI flora expected to be susceptible to ceftriaxone.2 Second, the emerging quinolone resistance among aerobic Gram-negative bacteria 2 and frequent use of ciprofloxacin for prophylaxis against spontaneous bacterial peritonitis have made use of ceftriaxone in this setting more desirable than quinolones.

Of note, a 2006 study involving patients with advanced cirrhosis (Child Pugh B or C) and GI hemorrhage receiving either norfloxacin or ceftriaxone for 7 days found a significantly lower risk of suspected or proven infections (11% vs 33%) and bacteremia or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (2% vs 12%) in the ceftriaxone group; there was no difference in hospital mortality. 3 Although the overall prevalence of quinolone-resistant gram-negatives was unknown, 6 of 7 gram-negative bacilli isolated in the norfloxacin group were quinolone resistant.

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that 30-40% of cirrhotic patients presenting with UGIB will develop a bacterial infection within a week of their admission? 1

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Chavez-Tapia NC, Barrientos-Gutierrez T, Tellez-Avila F, et al. Meta-analysis: antibiotic prophylaxis for cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding-an updated Cochrane review. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;34:509-518. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04746.x
  2. Mallet M, Rudler M, Thabut D. Variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. Gastroenterology Reports 2017;5:185-192. https://academic.oup.com/gastro/article/5/3/185/4002779
  3. Fernandez J, del Arbo LR, Gomez C, et al. Norfloxacin vs ceftriaxone in the prophylaxis of infections in patients with advanced cirrhosis and hemorrhage. Gastroenterology 2006;131:1049-1056. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016508506015356

 

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

Why are antibiotics routinely administered in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleed?

Is cefepime an acceptable alternative to carbapenems in the treatment of cefepime susceptible extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) Gram-negatives?

Irrespective of in-vitro susceptibility results, cefepime should be avoided in the treatment of serious ESBL infections associated with bacteremia, pneumonia, intraabdominal infection, endocarditis, bone/joint infection or whenever a high bacterial inoculum is suspected. Cefepime should be considered only in non-severe infections (eg, uncomplicated urinary tract infection) when the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) is 2 mg/L or less (1).

 

To date, clinical studies comparing cefepime vs carbapenem have been small and/or retrospective, often with conflicting results (1). A 2016 propensity score-matched study of patients with ESBL bacteremia receiving cefepime therapy followed by carbapenem therapy vs carbapenem for the entire treatment duration found higher 14 day mortality in the cefepime group (41% vs 20% in the carbapenem group) (2).  Of note, 2 of the patients receiving cefepime who died were infected with an ESBL organism with MIC of 1 mcg/mL. 

 

Another study found cefepime to be inferior to carbapenem therapy in ESBL bacteremic patients with better outcome when cefepime MIC was 1 ug/m or less (3).

 

Two studies involving patients with ESBL UTIs found no significant difference between cefepime and carbapenem in clinical and microbiological response or in-hospital mortality, while another UTI study with a high rate of septic shock (33%) found that cefepime was inferior to carbapenem in clinical and microbiological response (2).

 

The diminished efficacy of cefepime for the treatment of ESBL infections may be related to its “inoculum effect” ie, marked increase in MIC with increased inoculum size compared to that used in standard laboratory susceptibility testing (1,4).   

 

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 

References

  1. Karaiskos I, Giamarellou H. Carbapenem-sparing strategies for ESBL producers: when and how. Antibiotics 2020;9,61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32033322/
  2. Wang R, Cosgrove S, Tschudin-Sutter S, et al. Cefepime therapy for cefepime-susceptible extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enerobacteriaceae bacteremia. Open Forum Infect Dis 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4942761/
  3. Lee NY, Lee CC, Huang WH, et al. Cefepime therapy for monomicrobial bacteremia caused by cefepime-susceptible extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: MIC matters. Clin Infect Dis 203;56:488-95. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/56/4/488/351224
  4. Smith KP, Kirby JE. The inoculum effect in the era of multidrug resistance:minor differences in inoculum have dramatic effect on MIC determination. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018;62:e00433-18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6105823/

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

Is cefepime an acceptable alternative to carbapenems in the treatment of cefepime susceptible extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) Gram-negatives?