Asymptomatic carriers of coronavirus disease 2019 among healthcare workers in Isfahan, Iran

Diagnosis of mucormycosis using a simple duplex PCR assay: Analysis of 160 clinical samples from COVID-19 patients

Early diagnosis of mucormycosis, a severe and potentially fatal complication in immunocompromised and COVID-19 patients, is crucial for initiating timely antifungal therapy and reducing infection mortality. In this study, the diagnostic performance of a duplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay was evaluated to detect Mucorales-specific and Rhizopus oryzae-specific targets in 160 clinical samples collected from 112 COVID-19 patients suspected of invasive fungal rhinosinusitis (IFRS). During potassium hydroxide (KOH) direct microscopy, non-septate hyphae were observed in 73 out of 160 samples (45.63%); however, using duplex PCR, 82 out of 160 specimens (51.25%) tested positive. Among the positive PCR samples, 67 (81.71%) exhibited a double band (both 175 and 450 base pairs [bp]) indicating the presence of R. oryzae, and 15 (18.29%) showed only a single band (175 bp), suggesting the presence of non-R. oryzae Mucorales. DNAs from 10 microscopically negative samples and 4 samples with septate hyphae in microscopy were successfully amplified in PCR. Considering Calcofluor white fluorescence microscopy as the gold standard for laboratory diagnosis of mucormycosis, the duplex PCR assay utilized in this study exhibited a sensitivity of 93.88%, a specificity of 100%, a negative predictive value of 91.18%, and a positive predictive value of 100% for detecting mucormycosis in IFRS specimens. The duplex PCR assay demonstrated higher sensitivity compared to direct examination with KOH (82 vs. 73) and culture (82 vs. 41), enabling rapid detection/identification of Mucorales even in samples with negative culture or in biopsies with only a few hyphal elements.

A case of COVID-19-associated mucormycosis due to Lichtheimia ramosa

BACKGROUND

Mucormycosis is a life-threatening invasive fungal infection in immunocompromised and COVID-19 patients.

CASE REPORT

Here, we report a fatal rhino-orbito-cerebral mucormycosis caused by Lichtheimia ramosa, in a 79-year-old diabetic female. She was initially admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 infection and received broad-spectrum antibiotics and corticosteroids. After 1 month, she was admitted again because of persistent headaches and decreased right eye movement when the computed tomography scan showed mucosal thickening and opacification of paranasal sinuses. Microbiological investigations, including culture and direct microscopy, and histopathological findings confirmed the diagnosis of proven mucormycosis. The isolated causal agent was identified as Lichtheimia ramosa by sequencing the entire ITS region of nuclear ribosomal DNA. Despite surgical debridement and administration of liposomal amphotericin B 5 mg/kg/day, the patient's level of consciousness suddenly deteriorated; she was intubated and mechanically ventilated in the ICU and died on the same day.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first worldwide case of COVID-19-associated rhino-orbito-cerebral mucormycosis due to Lichtheimia ramosa.

Case report: COVID-19-associated mucormycosis co-infection with Lomentospora prolificans: The first case and review on multiple fungal co-infections during COVID-19 pandemic

Along with the pandemic COVID-19 spreads, new clinical challenges have emerged in the health care settings, among which there is a high risk of secondary invasive fungal infections with significant mortality. Here, we report a case of invasive fungal rhino orbital sinusitis due to the simultaneous co-infection by Rhizopus oryzae and Lomentospora prolificans, both identified by sequencing, in a 70-year-old Afghanistanian female with COVID-19. The patient was subjected to surgical debridement as well as taking liposomal amphotericin B, voriconazole, and on discharge, her condition was good. As far as we know, this is the first case of co-infection of COVID-19-associated mucormycosis (CAM) and Lomentospora prolificans infection. Multiple fungal co-infections in COVID-19 patients are reviewed.

Microbial and clinical epidemiology of invasive fungal rhinosinusitis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the divergent causative agents

Since COVID-19 spread worldwide, invasive fungal rhinosinusitis (IFRS) has emerged in immunocompromised patients as a new clinical challenge. In this study, clinical specimens of 89 COVID-19 patients who presented clinical and radiological evidence suggestive of IFRS were examined by direct microscopy, histopathology, and culture, and the isolated colonies were identified through DNA sequence analysis. Fungal elements were microscopically observed in 84.27% of the patients. Males (53.9%) and patients over 40 (95.5%) were more commonly affected than others. Headache (94.4%) and retro-orbital pain (87.6%) were the most common symptoms, followed by ptosis/proptosis/eyelid swelling (52.8%), and 74 patients underwent surgery and debridement. The most common predisposing factors were steroid therapy (n = 83, 93.3%), diabetes mellitus (n = 63, 70.8%), and hypertension (n = 42, 47.2%). The culture was positive for 60.67% of the confirmed cases, and Mucorales were the most prevalent (48.14%) causative fungal agents. Different species of Aspergillus (29.63%) and Fusarium (3.7%) and a mix of two filamentous fungi (16.67%) were other causative agents. For 21 patients, no growth was seen in culture despite a positive result on microscopic examinations. In PCR-sequencing of 53 isolates, divergent fungal taxons, including 8 genera and 17 species, were identified as followed: Rhizopus oryzae (n = 22), Aspergillus flavus (n = 10), A. fumigatus (n = 4), A. niger (n = 3), R. microsporus (n = 2), Mucor circinelloides, Lichtheimia ramosa, Apophysomyces variabilis, A. tubingensis, A. alliaceus, A. nidulans, A. calidoustus, Fusarium fujikuroi/proliferatum, F. oxysporum, F. solani, Lomentospora prolificans, and Candida albicans (each n = 1). In conclusion, a diverse set of species involved in COVID-19-associated IFRS was observed in this study. Our data encourage specialist physicians to consider the possibility of involving various species in IFRS in immunocompromised and COVID-19 patients. In light of utilizing molecular identification approaches, the current knowledge of microbial epidemiology of invasive fungal infections, especially IFRS, may change dramatically.

The Seroprevalence and Seropositivity of SARS-CoV-2 among Healthcare Workers during the Third Pandemic Wave

BACKGROUND

Due to the unclear protective role of produced antibodies and the need for seroepidemiologic studies, we surveyed the COVID-19 seroprevalence among healthcare professionals who had direct or indirect contact with COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

From 19 October 2020 to 17 February 2021, 300 healthcare workers were enrolled and tested for serum antibodies in this prospective cohort study. Demographic information, risk factors, and infection history were collected. Anti- SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibody titers were determined to estimate the seroconversion rate.

RESULTS

During the first and second phases of the study, the positive seroconversion rates were 31.7 and 26.6%, respectively. In seronegative individuals, sixteen (10.6%) new cases of COVID-19 and five (6.3%) reinfections were identified. Among those with a positive antibody level, forty-one (36.9%) healthcare workers reported no symptoms in the preceding months. There was no association between occupational exposure and an increased probability of seroconversion.

CONCLUSIONS

The seropositivity rate and the rate of asymptomatic individuals with seroconversion was remarkable and could be an indicator of a high infection rate among healthcare workers.

A case of COVID-19-associated rhino-orbito-cerebral mucormycosis caused by Apophysomyces variabilis with a review of the literature

A fatal case of COVID-19-associated mucormycosis (CAM) affected a 40-year-old woman who was initially admitted to our hospital due to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Her clinical condition worsened, and she finally died because of respiratory failure, hemodynamic instability, and mucormycosis with invasion into the orbit and probably the brain. According to DNA sequence analysis of the fungus isolated from the patient, Apophysomyces variabilis was involved. This is the first published case of CAM and the third case of mucormycosis due to this mold.

The role of routine SARS-CoV-2 screening of healthcare-workers in acute care hospitals in 2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Healthcare workers (HCW) are at increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vulnerable patient populations in particular must be protected, and clinics should not become transmission hotspots to avoid delaying medical treatments independent of COVID. Because asymptomatic transmission has been described, routine screening of asymptomatic HCW would potentially be able to interrupt chains of infection through early detection.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science and WHO COVID‐19 Global literature on coronavirus with regard to non-incident related testing of healthcare workers using polymerase chain reaction on May 4th 2021. Studies since January 2020 were included. An assessment of risk of bias and representativeness was performed.

Results

The search identified 39 studies with heterogeneous designs. Data collection of the included studies took place from January to August 2020. The studies were conducted worldwide and the sample size of the included HCW ranged from 70 to 9449 participants. In total, 1000 of 51,700 (1.9%) asymptomatic HCW were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using PCR testing. The proportion of positive test results ranged between 0 and 14.3%. No study reported on HCW-screening related reductions in infected person-days.

Discussion and conclusions

The heterogeneous proportions might be explained by different regional incidences, lock-downs, and pre-analytical pitfalls that reduce the sensitivity of the nasopharyngeal swab. The very high prevalence in some studies indicates that screening HCW for SARS-CoV-2 may be important particularly in geographical regions and pandemic periods with a high-incidence. With low numbers and an increasing rate of vaccinated HCW, a strict cost–benefit consideration must be made, especially in times of low incidences. Since we found no studies that reported on HCW-screening related reductions in infected person-days, re-evaluation should be done when these are available.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07554-5.

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic?

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2.

REVIEW PROTOCOL

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).

Melting curve-based assay as an alternative technique for the accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2

Background:

Early and cost-effective diagnosis and monitoring of the infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are critically important to anticipate and control the disease. We aimed to set up a SYBR Green-based one-step real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as a lower-cost alternative method to detect the virus.

Materials and Methods:

An in-house SYBR Green-based PCR assay targeting the envelope (E) and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) genes, was set up to diagnose the infection, and was compared with the reference probe-based PCR method.

Results:

When the commercial probe-based assay was considered as the reference method, SYBR Green-based PCR had a slightly lower sensitivity (81.98% and 86.25% for E and RdRp targets, respectively) and a good specificity (100% and 94.44% for E and RdRp targets, respectively). For both gene targets, three different melting temperature (Tm) patterns were found in the PCRs of the nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab samples, but no size polymorphism was seen in agarose gel electrophoresis.

Conclusion:

Further studies to improvement of the assay are needed to make it an inexpensive and reliable tool for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Quantification of asymptomatic infections is fundamental for effective public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discrepancies regarding the extent of asymptomaticity have arisen from inconsistent terminology as well as conflation of index and secondary cases which biases toward lower asymptomaticity. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and World Health Organization Global Research Database on COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and April 2, 2021 to identify studies that reported silent infections at the time of testing, whether presymptomatic or asymptomatic. Index cases were removed to minimize representational bias that would result in overestimation of symptomaticity. By analyzing over 350 studies, we estimate that the percentage of infections that never developed clinical symptoms, and thus were truly asymptomatic, was 35.1% (95% CI: 30.7 to 39.9%). At the time of testing, 42.8% (95% prediction interval: 5.2 to 91.1%) of cases exhibited no symptoms, a group comprising both asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections. Asymptomaticity was significantly lower among the elderly, at 19.7% (95% CI: 12.7 to 29.4%) compared with children at 46.7% (95% CI: 32.0 to 62.0%). We also found that cases with comorbidities had significantly lower asymptomaticity compared to cases with no underlying medical conditions. Without proactive policies to detect asymptomatic infections, such as rapid contact tracing, prolonged efforts for pandemic control may be needed even in the presence of vaccination.