Pneumonia caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 emerged in China at the end of 2019. Because of the severe immunomodulation and lymphocyte depletion caused by this virus and the subsequent administration of drugs directed at the immune system, we anticipated that patients might experience fungal superinfection. We collected data from 186 patients who had coronavirus disease–associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) worldwide during March–August 2020. Overall, 182 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), including 180 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and 175 who received mechanical ventilation. CAPA was diagnosed a median of 10 days after coronavirus disease diagnosis. Aspergillus fumigatus was identified in 80.3% of patient cultures, 4 of which were azole-resistant. Most (52.7%) patients received voriconazole. In total, 52.2% of patients died; of the deaths, 33.0% were attributed to CAPA. We found that the cumulative incidence of CAPA in the ICU ranged from 1.0% to 39.1%.

Introduction Since the early SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, cancer patients have been assumed to be at higher risk for severe COVID-19. Here, we present an analysis of cancer patients from the LEOSS (Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 Infected Patients) registry to determine whether cancer patients are at higher risk. Patients and methods We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 435 cancer patients and 2636 non-cancer patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, enrolled between March 16 and August 31, 2020. Data on socio-demographics, comorbidities, cancer-related features and infection course were collected. Age-, sex- and comorbidity-adjusted analysis was performed. Primary endpoint was COVID-19-related mortality. Results In total, 435 cancer patients were included in our analysis. Commonest age category was 76–85 years (36.5%), and 40.5% were female. Solid tumors were seen in 59% and lymphoma and leukemia in 17.5% and 11% of patients. Of these, 54% had an active malignancy, and 22% had recently received anti-cancer treatments. At detection of SARS-CoV-2, the majority (62.5%) presented with mild symptoms. Progression to severe COVID-19 was seen in 55% and ICU admission in 27.5%. COVID-19-related mortality rate was 22.5%. Male sex, advanced age, and active malignancy were associated with higher death rates. Comparing cancer and non-cancer patients, age distribution and comorbidity differed significantly, as did mortality (14% vs 22.5%, p value < 0.001). After adjustments for other risk factors, mortality was comparable. Conclusion Comparing cancer and non-cancer patients, outcome of COVID-19 was comparable after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidity. However, our results emphasize that cancer patients as a group are at higher risk due to advanced age and pre-existing conditions.

Purpose SARS-CoV-2 is a recently emerged ß-coronavirus. Here we present the current knowledge on its epidemiologic features. Methods Non-systematic review. Results SARS-CoV-2 replicates in the upper and lower respiratory tract. It is mainly transmitted by droplets and aerosols from asymptomatic and symptomatic infected subjects. The consensus estimate for the basis reproduction number (R0) is between 2 and 3, and the median incubation period is 5.7 (range 2–14) days. Similar to SARS and MERS, superspreading events have been reported, the dispersion parameter (kappa) is estimated at 0.1. Most infections are uncomplicated, and 5–10% of patients are hospitalized, mainly due to pneumonia with severe inflammation. Complications are respiratory and multiorgan failure; risk factors for complicated disease are higher age, hypertension, diabetes, chronic cardiovascular, chronic pulmonary disease and immunodeficiency. Nosocomial and infections in medical personnel have been reported. Drastic reductions of social contacts have been implemented in many countries with outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2, leading to rapid reductions. Most interventions have used bundles, but which of the measures have been more or less effective is still unknown. The current estimate for the infection’s fatality rate is 0.5–1%. Using current models of age-dependent infection fatality rates, upper and lower limits for the attack rate in Germany can be estimated between 0.4 and 1.6%, lower than in most European countries. Conclusions Despite a rapid worldwide spread, attack rates have been low in most regions, demonstrating the efficacy of control measures.

Objective The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic challenges national health systems and the global economy. Monitoring of infection rates and seroprevalence can guide public health measures to combat the pandemic. This depends on reliable tests on active and former infections. Here, we set out to develop and validate a specific and sensitive enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels. Methods In our ELISA, we used SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) and a stabilized version of the spike (S) ectodomain as antigens. We assessed sera from patients infected with seasonal coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 and controls. We determined and monitored IgM-, IgA-and IgG-antibody responses towards these antigens. In addition, for a panel of 22 sera, virus neutralization and ELISA parameters were measured and correlated. Results The RBD-based ELISA detected SARS-CoV-2-directed antibodies, did not cross-react with seasonal coronavirus antibodies and correlated with virus neutralization (R 2 = 0.89). Seroconversion started at 5 days after symptom onset and led to robust antibody levels at 10 days after symptom onset. We demonstrate high specificity (99.3%; N = 1000) and sensitivity (92% for IgA, 96% for IgG and 98% for IgM; > 10 days after PCR-proven infection; N = 53) in serum. Conclusions With the described RBD-based ELISA protocol, we provide a reliable test for seroepidemiological surveys. Due to high specificity and strong correlation with virus neutralization, the RBD ELISA holds great potential to become a preferred tool to assess thresholds of protective immunity after infection and vaccination.

BackgroundConflicts between professional duties and fear of influenza transmission to family members may arise among health care professionals (HCP).MethodsWe surveyed employees at our university hospital regarding ethical issues arising during the management of an influenza pandemic.ResultsOf 644 respondents, 182 (28%) agreed that it would be professionally acceptable for HCP to abandon their workplace during a pandemic in order to protect themselves and their families, 337 (52%) disagreed with this statement and 125 (19%) had no opinion, with a higher rate of disagreement among physicians (65%) and nurses (54%) compared with administrators (32%). Of all respondents, 375 (58%) did not believe that the decision to report to work during a pandemic should be left to the individual HCP and 496 (77%) disagreed with the statement that HCP should be permanently dismissed for not reporting to work during a pandemic. Only 136 (21%) respondents agreed that HCW without children should primarily care for the influenza patients.ConclusionOur results suggest that a modest majority of HCP, but only a minority of hospital administrators, recognises the obligation to treat patients despite the potential risks. Professional ethical guidelines allowing for balancing the needs of society with personal risks are needed to help HCP fulfil their duties in the case of a pandemic influenza.