| Literature DB >> 35604675 |
A P Bellanger1,2,3, S Lallemand1, A Tumasyan Horikian1, J C Navellou4, C Barrera1,2,3, A Rouzet1,2,3, E Scherer1,2,3, G Reboux1,2, G Piton4, L Millon1,2,3.
Abstract
Although a high prevalence of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis has been reported, it is still difficult to distinguish between colonization with Aspergillus fumigatus and infection. Concomitantly, similarities between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and hypersensitivity pneumonitis were suggested. The objective of this study was to investigate retrospectively if precipitin assays targeting A. fumigatus could have been useful in the management of SARS-CoV-2 patients hospitalized in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in 2020. SARS-CoV-2 ICU patients were screened for Aspergillus co-infection using biomarkers (galactomannan antigen, qPCR) and culture of respiratory samples (tracheal aspirates and bronchoalveolar lavage). For all these patients, clinical data, ICU characteristics and microbial results were collected. Electrosyneresis assays were performed using commercial A. fumigatus somatic and metabolic antigens. ELISA were performed using in-house A. fumigatus purified antigen and recombinant antigens.Our study population consisted of 65 predominantly male patients, with a median ICU stay of 22 days, and a global survival rate of 62%. Thirty-five patients had at least one positive marker for Aspergillus species detection. The number of arcs obtained by electrosyneresis using the somatic A. fumigatus antigen was significantly higher for these 35 SARS-CoV-2 ICU patients (P 0.01, Welch's t-test). Our study showed that SARS-CoV-2 ICU patients with a positive marker for Aspergillus species detection more often presented precipitins towards A. fumigatus. Serology assays could be an additional tool to assess the clinical relevance of the Aspergillus species in respiratory samples of SARS-CoV-2 ICU patients. LAYEntities:
Keywords: zzm321990 Aspergillus fumigatuszzm321990 ; SARS-CoV-2; electrosyneresis; precipitins; somatic antigen; tracheal aspirates
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35604675 PMCID: PMC9213863 DOI: 10.1093/mmy/myac031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Mycol ISSN: 1369-3786 Impact factor: 3.747
Figure 1.Illustration of precipitation arcs obtained by electrosyneresis.
Description of sex, age, residence details and risk factors for both groups of patients.
|
| Control group N = 30 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 28 (80%) | 24 (80%) | 1 |
|
| 67 | 72 | 0.06 |
|
|
|
| 0.21 |
|
| 0.3 ± 0.6 | 0.07 ± 0.2 |
|
|
| 1.4 ± 1 | 1.5 ± 1.1 | 0.70 |
|
| 0.2 ± 0.7 | 0.4 ± 0.6 | 0.28 |
ICU characteristics and fungal screening.
| Clinical data |
| Control Group N = 30 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 21 [3–44] | 25 [3–70] | 0.17 |
|
| 19 [8–38] | 22 [13–33] | 0.14 |
|
| 15/27 (43%) | 13 (48%) | 0.68 |
|
| 21 (60%) | 19 (63%) | 0.78 |
|
| 14 (40%) | 1 (3%) |
|
|
| 5 [0–11] | 4 [1–17] | 0.83 |
|
| 1 [0–4] | 0 [0–5] | 0.45 |
|
| 2 [0–7] | 3 [1–10] |
|
|
| 2 [0–7] | 3 [1–10] |
|
Criteria for probable CAPA/colonization classification for patients included in the “A. fumigatus group”, based on Koelher's classification.
| Patients | Positive culture in tracheal aspirates | Positive culture in BAL | Positive galactomannan (serum) | Positive | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Yes | Yes | No | No | Probable CAPA |
| P2 | Yes | Yes | No | No | Probable CAPA |
| P3 | Yes | Yes | No | No | Probable CAPA |
| P4 | Yes | yes | no | no | Probable CAPA |
| P5 | Yes | yes | no | no | Probable CAPA |
| P6 | Yes | yes | no | no | Probable CAPA |
| P7 | Yes | yes | no | no | Probable CAPA |
| P8 | Yes | yes | no | no | Probable CAPA |
| P9 | Yes | yes | no | no | Probable CAPA |
| P10 | Yes | yes | no | no | Probable CAPA |
| P11 | Yes | yes | no | yes | Probable CAPA |
| P12 | No | No | yes | yes | Probable CAPA |
| P13 | Yes | No | no | no | Colonized |
| P14 | yes | No | no | no | Colonized |
| P15 | yes | No | no | no | Colonized |
| P16 | yes | No | no | no | Colonized |
| P17 | yes | No | no | no | Colonized |
| P18 | yes | No | no | no | Colonized |
| P19 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P20 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P21 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P22 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P23 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P24 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P25 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P26 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P27 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P28 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P29 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P30 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P31 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P32 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P33 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P34 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
| P35 | yes | no | no | no | Colonized |
Figure 2.Serology results. (A) Significant difference by electrosyneresis between the two groups studied using the somatic A. fumigatus antigen (P 0.01, Welch's t-test). (B) No significant difference by electrosyneresis between the two groups studied using the metabolic A. fumigatus antigen (Welch's t-test). (C) No significant difference by ELISA using the purified A. fumigatus antigen (Welch's t-test). (D) No significant difference by ELISA using the recombinant G6PI antigen (Welch's t test). (E) No significant difference by ELISA using the recombinant GLPV antigen (Welch's t-test).
Figure 3.Serology results using in-house ELISA, when considering the groups probable CAPA (n = 12), colonized (n = 23) and non-colonized (n = 30).