Background Different pathogens can cause community-acquired pneumonia (CAP); however, the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has re-emphasized the vital role of respiratory viruses as a cause of CAP. The aim was to explore differences in metabolic profile, body composition, physical capacity, and inflammation between patients hospitalized with CAP caused by different etiology. Methods A prospective study of Danish patients hospitalized with CAP caused by SARS-CoV-2, influenza, or bacteria. Fat (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) were assessed with bioelectrical impedance analysis. Physical activity and capacity were assessed using questionnaires and handgrip strength. Plasma (p)-glucose, p-lipids, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), p-adiponectin, and cytokines were measured. Results Among 164 patients with CAP, etiology did not affect admission levels of glucose, HbA1c, adiponectin, or lipids. Overall, 15.2% had known diabetes, 6.1% had undiagnosed diabetes, 51.3% had pre-diabetes, 81% had hyperglycemia, and 60% had low HDL-cholesterol, with no difference between groups. Body mass index, FM, and FFM were similar between groups, with 73% of the patients being characterized with abdominal obesity, although waist circumference was lower in patients with COVID-19. Physical capacity was similar between groups. More than 80% had low handgrip strength and low physical activity levels. Compared to patients with influenza, patients with COVID-19 had increased levels of interferon (IFN)-γ (mean difference (MD) 4.14; 95% CI 1.36–12.58; p = 0.008), interleukin (IL)-4 (MD 1.82; 95% CI 1.12–2.97; p = 0.012), IL-5 (MD 2.22; 95% CI 1.09–4.52; p = 0.024), and IL-6 (MD 2.41; 95% CI 1.02–5.68; p = 0.044) and increased IFN-γ (MD 6.10; 95% CI 2.53–14.71; p < 0.001) and IL-10 (MD 2.68; 95% CI 1.53–4.69; p < 0.001) compared to patients with bacterial CAP, but no difference in IL-1β, tumor necrosis factor-α, IL-8, IL-18, IL-12p70, C-reactive protein, and adiponectin. Conclusion Despite higher inflammatory response in patients with COVID-19, metabolic profile, body composition, and physical capacity were similar to patients with influenza and bacterial CAP.

Escherichia coli sequence type 131 (ST131) is a major cause of urinary and bloodstream infections. Its association with extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) significantly complicates treatment. Its best-described component is the rapidly expanding H30Rx clade, containing allele 30 of the type 1 fimbrial adhesin gene fimH. This lineage appears to have emerged in the United States and spread around the world in part due to the acquisition of the ESBL-encoding blaCTX-M-15 gene and resistance to fluoroquinolones. However, non-H30 ST131 sublineages with other acquired CTX-M-type resistance genes are also emerging. Based on whole-genome analyses, we describe here the presence of an (fimH) H27 E. coli ST131 sublineage that has recently caused an outbreak of community-acquired bacteremia and recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) in Denmark. This sublineage has acquired both a virulence plasmid (pAA) that defines the enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC) diarrheagenic pathotype and multiple genes associated with extraintestinal E. coli (ExPEC); combined, these traits have made this particular ST131 sublineage successful at colonizing its human host and causing recurrent UTI. Moreover, using a historic World Health Organization (WHO) E. coli collection and publicly available genome sequences, we identified a global H27 EAEC ST131 sublineage that dates back as far as 1998. Most H27 EAEC ST131 isolates harbor pAA or pAA-like plasmids, and our analysis strongly implies a single ancestral acquisition among these isolates. These findings illustrate both the profound plasticity of this important pathogenic E. coli ST131 H27 sublineage and genetic acquisitions of EAEC-specific virulence traits that likely confer an enhanced ability to cause intestinal colonization. IMPORTANCE E. coli ST131 is an important extraintestinal pathogenic lineage. A signature characteristic of ST131 is its ability to asymptomatically colonize the gastrointestinal tract and then opportunistically cause extraintestinal infections, such as cystitis, pyelonephritis, and urosepsis. In this study, we identified an ST131 H27 sublineage that has acquired the enteroaggregative diarrheagenic phenotype, spread across multiple continents, and caused multiple outbreaks of community-acquired ESBL-associated bloodstream infections in Denmark. The strain’s ability to both cause diarrhea and innocuously colonize the human gastrointestinal tract may facilitate its dissemination and establishment in the community.

Objective: To investigate whether telemetric continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospitalized and isolated patients with diabetes mellitus and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with better glycaemic outcomes and fewer patient-health care worker contacts compared to blood glucose monitoring by traditional point-of-care (POC) glucose testing and to investigate the user aspect of implementing a CGM-system inhospital. Methods: A randomized controlled exploratory trial was performed on hospitalized and isolated patients with diabetes and COVID-19 from May 2020 until February 2021 at Nordsjaellands Hospital, Denmark. Participants were randomized to nonblinded telemetric CGM (as the only glucose monitoring method) or traditional POC glucose testing + blinded CGM. The primary endpoint was Time In Range (TIR) based on CGM data in both groups. A questionnaire about the user aspect of the CGM system was answered by health care personnel (HCP). Results: We included 64 participants in the analysis, 31 in the CGM group and 33 in the POC glucose group. TIR median was 46% for the CGM group and 68% for the POC glucose group (p=0.368). The mean glucose value for the CGM group was 11.1 mmol/L and 10.8 mmol/L in the POC glucose group (p=0.372). CGM was associated with fewer POC glucose measurements (p<0.001). Out of 30 HCPs, 28 preferred telemetric CGM over POC glucose testing. Conclusion: Remote glucose monitoring by CGM did not improve glycaemic outcomes compared to traditional POC glucose testing but was associated with fewer patientpersonnel contacts, saving time for HCPs performing diabetes-related tasks. Most HCPs preferred CGM.