Next Article in Journal
A Collaborative Tale of Diagnosing and Treating Chronic Pulmonary Aspergillosis, from the Perspectives of Clinical Microbiologists, Surgical Pathologists, and Infectious Disease Clinicians
Next Article in Special Issue
COVID-19 Associated Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges
Previous Article in Journal
Pathogenicity Levels of Colombian Strains of Candida auris and Brazilian Strains of Candida haemulonii Species Complex in Both Murine and Galleria mellonella Experimental Models
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bloodstream Infection by Saccharomyces cerevisiae in Two COVID-19 Patients after Receiving Supplementation of Saccharomyces in the ICU
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Is the COVID-19 Pandemic a Good Time to Include Aspergillus Molecular Detection to Categorize Aspergillosis in ICU Patients? A Monocentric Experience

1
Service de Parasitologie-Mycologie, CHU Rennes, F-35033 Rennes, France
2
Irset (Institut de Recherche en Santé, Environnement et Travail)–UMR_S 1085, Univ Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, F-35000 Rennes, France
3
Maladies Infectieuses et Réanimation Médicale, CHU Rennes, F-35033 Rennes, France
4
Service de Réanimation Chirurgicale, CHU Rennes, F-35033 Rennes, France
5
Service d’Imagerie Médicale, CHU Rennes, F-35033 Rennes, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2020, 6(3), 105; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6030105
Submission received: 12 June 2020 / Revised: 3 July 2020 / Accepted: 6 July 2020 / Published: 10 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fungal Infections Complicating COVID-19)

Abstract

:
(1) Background: The diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis (IA) in an intensive care unit (ICU) remains a challenge and the COVID-19 epidemic makes it even harder. Here, we evaluated Aspergillus PCR input to help classifying IA in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. (2) Methods: 45 COVID-19 patients were prospectively monitored twice weekly for Aspergillus markers and anti-Aspergillus serology. We evaluated the concordance between (I) Aspergillus PCR and culture in respiratory samples, and (II) blood PCR and serum galactomannan. Patients were classified as putative/proven/colonized using AspICU algorithm and two other methods. (3) Results: The concordance of techniques applied on respiratory and blood samples was moderate (kappa = 0.58 and kappa = 0.63, respectively), with a higher sensitivity of PCR. According to AspICU, 9/45 patients were classified as putative IA. When incorporating PCR results, 15 were putative IA because they met all criteria, probably with a lack of specificity in the context of COVID-19. Using a modified AspICU algorithm, eight patients were classified as colonized and seven as putative IA. (4) Conclusion: An appreciation of the fungal burden using PCR and Aspergillus serology was added to propose a modified AspICU algorithm. This proof of concept seemed relevant, as it was in agreement with the outcome of patients, but will need validation in larger cohorts.

1. Introduction

Molecular tools as diagnostic criteria for invasive fungal diseases (IFD) has long been questioned because of a lack of reproducibility and insufficient standardization of protocols. Thanks to initiatives such as FPCRI (www.fpcri.eu [1]) and to the dramatic improvement of the quality assessment of molecular technics, Aspergillus PCR is now included in the new EORTC criteria for classification [2]. Regarding intensive care units (ICU) patients, the classification of IFD mainly refers on criteria adapted from neutropenic patients or relies on single center experiences. One algorithm has emerged as a valuable tool to classify invasive aspergillosis (IA) in ICU patients: the AspICU algorithm [3]. This classification is considered as robust because it has been evaluated in patients for whom autopsy results were available, but it is quite awkward to use in routine practice, particularly in COVID-19 patients with clinical and CT-scan signs hard to interpret [4]. Besides, it does not include molecular markers, which are now used routinely [5].
During COVID-19, patients presenting an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) shared risk factors and underlying diseases classically reported for IA, such as intubation and mechanical ventilation, corticosteroid therapy, immunological storm with high production of inflammatory cytokines. Warnings following preliminary cohort studies from various countries prompted the monitoring of fungal colonization and co-infections in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients hospitalized in an ICU. However, the entry criterion for putative IA, according to Blot et al., is an Aspergillus-positive culture endotracheal aspirate, which may lack specificity. In the recent review by Arastehfar et al. [6], many COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) benefited from galactomannan (GM) testing of bronchoalveolar fluid (BALF) or even of tracheal aspirates (not approved by the manufacturer). However, some laboratories, such as ours, have stopped various manipulations of highly SARS-CoV-2-infected samples in order to limit the exposure of laboratory technicians to viral infection. Then, direct examination of respiratory samples or galactomannan (GM) determination in broncho-alveolar lavage have thus been replaced by the systematic use of molecular tools. While performances of blood biomarkers such as GM, (1-3)β-d-glucan (BDG) or Aspergillus DNA detection are well evaluated in neutropenic patients, their clinical value is far less known in other conditions and still need evaluation in an ICU.
Here, our objective was to evaluate the concordance between molecular detection of Aspergillus in respiratory and culture and concordance between blood PCR and serum GM. We also aimed at assessing the ability of Aspergillus PCRs to help categorizing patients in the continuum of colonization to invasive infection in COVID-19 patients. Arguments to complement AspICU criteria are suggested.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Population of Patients

Forty-five intubated and mechanically ventilated patients hospitalized in a “COVID-19 ICU” of Rennes teaching hospital were screened for this study and benefited from a systematic monitoring to detect Aspergillus.
The hospital’s ethics committee (N 20-56 obtained the 30 April 2020) approved the study. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory specimens (nasal and pharyngeal swabs or sputum) was detected by real time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) methods.
The following data were recorded: age, patient’s preexisting condition (current smoking, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and kidney disease), body mass index, ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, ventilator-free days at day 28, need for prone position ventilation, and death in the ICU. Initial clinical laboratory workup included a complete blood count and serum biochemical tests. Chest CT scans were performed during the ICU hospitalization. The Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) and the Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at admission in ICU, at day 7 and 14 days after admission were used to assess severity [7,8].

2.2. Aspergillus Detection

Respiratory samples, either bronchial or endotracheal aspirates or bronchoalveolar lavages, were systematic twice weekly and Aspergillus detection was performed using culture and real-time quantitative PCR, but GM was not performed to avoid any risk of lab contamination.
Briefly, respiratory samples were first digested using v/v digestEUR (Eurobio) for 30 min under shaking. Mycological culture were performed after centrifugation of fluidified samples by inoculation of 100–200 µL of pellet on Sabouraud-Chloramphenicol dextrose Agar plates, and incubated for 7 days at 30 °C and 37 °C. Mold identification at genus or species complex level was performed microscopically, and confirmed at species level using MALDI-ToF mass spectrometry (MALDI Biotyper, Bruker France, Marne-la-Vallée, France), after fungal material extraction [9]. Spectrum profiles were then submitted to the Mass Spectrometry Identification (MSI) online database for definitive identification (https://msi.happy-dev.fr/ [10]).
For molecular detection, 200 µL of plain fluidified respiratory sample underwent immediate SARS-CoV-2 inactivation by heating at 56 °C overnight in ATL Lysis buffer (Qiagen, Saint-Quentin Fallavier, France), before DNA extraction using the EZ1 DSP virus kit (Qiagen) on a EZ1 Advanced XL device (Qiagen). Molecular detection of A. fumigatus was done using a 28S rDNA Aspergillus-targeted PCR, as previously published [11,12].
In case of Aspergillus positive culture and/or positive PCR in respiratory samples, additional tests were performed on serum, i.e., detection of GM (Platelia GM Aspergillus, Biorad, Marnes-la-Coquette, France), Aspergillus PCR and detection of anti-Aspergillus antibody by ELISA (Platelia IgG Aspergillus, Biorad) and in-house immunoelectrophoresis. Briefly, Aspergillus PCR was performed on 1 mL of serum extracted using MagNA Pure 24 Total NA Isolation kit (Roche diagnostics, Meylan, France) on a MagNA Pure 24 device (Roche diagnostics), according to manufacturer recommendations. DNA was eluted in a volume of 50 µL.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were expressed as median (interquartile range, IQR) and compared using the nonparametric Mann–Whitney U or Kruskal–Wallis test. Dunn’s correction tests were performed if multiple comparisons were requested. Qualitative data were compared using Chi-square test. Tests were two-sided with significance set at α less than 0.05.
Concordance between categorical results from diagnostic tests was performed using the percent agreement coefficient and Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ). When comparing quantitative data, an ANOVA test was performed. All data were analyzed with GraphPad Prism 8.4 (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Patient Aspergillus Status

A cohort of 45 COVID-19 intubated and mechanically ventilated patients for ARDS was followed. Patients benefited from a systematic screening for Aspergillus. Overall, 211 respiratory samples (culture and PCR) and 32 serum samples (GM detection and Aspergillus PCR) were collected. The mean number of respiratory samples until patient discharge from ICU was 3.8 (median = 3).
We categorized these 45 patients according to the AspICU algorithm and propose two alternative classification methods presented in Table 1: the AspICU algorithm associated to PCR results in respiratory and serum samples, and a modified AspICU proposal. Thirty patients did not present any biological criteria of aspergillosis with any of the algorithms. According to the AspICU classification incorporating PCR detection, 15 were classified as having putative aspergillosis because they met all criteria reported by Blot et al., i.e., compatible clinical signs, abnormal thoracic medical imaging on CT scan and positive screening for Aspergillus on respiratory samples. However, in this particular context of COVID-19 with all ARDS patients presenting compatible clinical signs and abnormal chest CT imaging in all likelihood lacking specificity, we decided to use a modified AspICU algorithm taking into account blood markers; we classified eight patients as colonized and seven patients with a putative/probable IA (Table 1 and Table 2).

3.2. Demographic, Clinical and Biological Characteristics

Demographic, clinical and biological baseline characteristics at admission are detailed in Table 3 and Table S1. Basic demographic characteristics were well-balanced between the three groups of patients (no aspergillosis, Aspergillus colonization, putative/probable aspergillosis). Of note, we observed a high proportion (71.1%) of male patients in the study population. Clinical and biological baseline data did not differ among the three groups, except C-reactive protein which was higher in the “no aspergillosis” group. Regarding the severity scores at admission, no differences were observed either, among the groups of patients, but SAPS II and SOFA scores at day one tended to be higher in patients with putative invasive aspergillosis.

3.3. Concordance of Diagnostic Tools

Table 4 gathers the results of the techniques used for Aspergillus detection. DNA detection by PCR showed the highest sensitivity, with a number of positive respiratory samples near twice higher, compared to the culture. Only one sample grew in culture, whereas PCR was negative, but the species obtained in culture was A. tubingensis (Nigri complex species), which is theoretically not amplified when using the 28S-targeted PCR specific for A. fumigatus. Interestingly, the correlation between cultural and molecular quantification showed a significant difference between the two techniques, with a mean Cq threshold of 32.6 ± 0.7 when cultures were negative, highlighting the higher sensitivity of PCR (Figure 1).
Overall, the concordance coefficient between PCR and culture on respiratory samples was 90.52% with a Cohen’s Kappa coefficient of 0.588. Regarding blood samples, three patients had a positive detection of a systemic biomarker: 3/3 had a positive PCR and 2/3 had a positive GM (Table 5). All three patients had a simultaneous detection of Aspergillus in respiratory samples by culture (n = 2) and/or PCR (n = 3). Overall, the concordance coefficient between PCR and culture on respiratory samples was 93.75% with a Cohen’s Kappa coefficient of 0.632.

3.4. Relevance of Various Tests and Categorization of Patients and Outcome

Table 6 presents the classification of the 45 patients using original or modified AspICU algorithms. It appears that using an AspICU algorithm, nine patients were considered as having a putative IA (22% of the cohort). When including PCR, the number of patients with putative IA would increase from 9 to 15 (33%) patients, while most patients might be only colonized because all presented compatible clinical signs and abnormal chest CT scan (Table 5). Regarding Aspergillus detection, eight patients had a single detection of fungi using culture and/or PCR in respiratory samples and thus were classified as colonized. One of these patients had a concomitant GM detection in serum (index = 0.551), was not treated and is still alive, thus was considered as a false positive result. Finally, seven (16%) patients presented a heavy burden of Aspergillus in the respiratory tract with repeated positive cultures and/or PCR. In order to rule out a chronic colonization before the episode, an anti-Aspergillus antibody testing was performed and showed negative results. These patients were classified as putative IA, and three of them could even be considered as probable IA because of a positive biomarker of angioinvasion (serum PCR and/or GM) in agreement with EORTC/MSG classification.
Interestingly, following these classification criteria, CT scan abnormalities showed a gradation according to patient group. Diffuse reticular or alveolar opacities were observed in patients classified as probable IA (Figure 2), nodules in half of putative IA, and in colonized patients, only non-specific and hard to interpret signs in the context of COVID-19 infection could be described.
In addition, putative/probable aspergillosis patients appeared more severely ill than patients without aspergillosis, since SOFA score at day seven was significantly higher in this group (p = 0.01) with a continuum between no infection, colonization and IA (Table 5). Similarly, the mean ICU length of stay increased significantly from 12 days in patients without aspergillosis to 23 days in colonized patients, and 27 days in putative/probable invasive aspergillosis (p = 0.02). All patients with a putative/probable IA were treated either with voriconazole or isavuconazole. Only one colonized patient was treated with voriconazole. Six patients died; there was a trend towards higher mortality in the group of putative/probable IA compared to uninfected patients, although not significant (2/7; 28.6%) versus 4/30 (13.3%), respectively (Table 7).

4. Discussion

In France, the global burden of severe fungal infection is estimated at approximately 1,000,000 (1.47%) cases each year [13] and IFD account for a higher risk of mortality in patients with co-morbidities from 9 to 40% [14]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, warning messages considering similarities between Sars-CoV-2 and influenza infections stressed the importance of vigilance towards IFD [15,16]. Local experiences are now published and show high numbers of putative IA [17,18,19,20,21,22].
The diagnosis of IA still remains challenging because of a wide diversity of underlying conditions and growing number of criteria, particularly biological tools [6]. In deeply immunosuppressed patients, such as neutropenic patients, patients under antineoplastic and prolonged corticosteroid therapy or solid organ transplantation, criteria for classification of IFD and notably IA have recently been revised incorporating Aspergillus molecular detection [2]. In ICU, the AspICU algorithm published by Blot et al., [3] is a robust and helpful tool for aspergillosis classification but needs to be more evaluated and even updated. In order to address limitations of the various classification definitions for ICU patients, the ongoing FUNgal infections Definitions in ICU patients (FUNDICU) project aims to develop a standard set of definitions for IFD in critically ill patients [5].
The breaking news of SARS-CoV-2 co-infection urges the need for a critical analysis of the criteria of AspICU algorithm. Indeed, COVID-19 patients, particularly ARDS patients with mechanical ventilation, present with compatible clinical signs as depicted by the algorithm (refractory fever, pleuritic chest pain and rub, dyspnea, hemoptysis and worsening respiratory insufficiency, see [3] for full description) and CT-scan signs are hard to interpret because of COVID-19 CT-scan presentation, leading to absence or very poor discrimination between Aspergillus colonization and infection [19,23]. As a result, IA during COVID-19 has been reported with a possible overestimated high prevalence (until 30%), as favorable outcomes have been described in patients who did not receive any antifungal treatment.
In order to have a well-balanced patient management, limiting unnecessary and costly antifungal treatments while not neglecting the life-threatening feature of IA, we included A. fumigatus PCR as a monitoring tool for fungal detection in both respiratory and blood samples in addition to classical culture and GM approaches but with some restrictions. As expected, PCR allowed detecting Aspergillus in much more respiratory samples. We previously showed that PCR improved the detection of Aspergillus in BAL, with a particular added value in ICU patients compared to hematology patients [11]. Furthermore, PCR using in-house but also marketed kits is also capable of identifying specific gene mutations associated with azole resistance [11,24]. Besides, the sensitivity of GM detection in blood is less sensitive in ICU than for patients with hematological malignancies [5]. Here, the higher sensitivity of Aspergillus detection also incites us to adopt modified criteria for case definition to gain in specificity. Two major changes were introduced to modify the granularity of the classification: (i) the first one is to combine Aspergillus detection in respiratory samples and anti-Aspergillus antibody testing, to distinguish chronic colonization (positive serology) from acute massive colonization (negative serology) and (ii) the second is to introduce of obvious biomarkers of angioinvasion (serum GM and blood PCR), similar to those of the EORTC/MSG classification [2]. Of note, the combination of positive culture, positive anti-Aspergillus antibody testing and positive GM in the context of chronic respiratory diseases characterized a transition step from chronic pulmonary aspergillosis to probable IA [25,26].
Using this refined classification, we were able to categorize our patients in five classes: no infection, colonization, putative IA, probable IA and proven IA (no case of proven IA in the cohort), with a better relevance than the initial AspICU classification, and better specificity than the AspICU + PCR classification. The decision of antifungal treatment onset was taken according to this modified AspICU classification and the outcome observed gives confidence in this patient management. Of course, the limitation of this work is the relatively small number of patients and should be evaluated on larger cohorts in order to correctly analyze the performance of this alternative. A remaining question is also to determine the place of the serum biomarker (1,3)-β-d-glucan in ICU patients, a question that has recently been raised by Honoré et al. [27]
In conclusion, molecular techniques are now key tools for monitoring IFD, particularly IA as recently updated in the EORTC/MSG definitions, but also Pneumocystis jirovecii or mucorales infections. Here, we suggest some adaptations of the AspICU clinical algorithm to gain in sensitivity and specificity. Large multicentric data are needed to confirm this proof of concept study.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/6/3/105/s1, Table S1: Clinical and biological features of the 9 patients classified as putative aspergillosis according to Blot et al., 2012.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.-P.G., F.R., H.G., J.-M.T. and F.R.-G.; Data curation, J.-P.G., H.G., R.P., M.L. and F.R.-G.; Formal analysis, J.-P.G., F.R., H.G., M.L., J.-M.T. and F.R.-G.; Investigation, J.-P.G., F.R., H.G., K.P., P.L.B., R.P., E.P., S.B., M.L.S., Y.L.T., P.S., M.L. and J.-M.T.; Methodology, J.-P.G., F.R., H.G.and F.R.-G.; Project administration, J.-P.G.; Resources, J.-P.G, F.R., H.G., K.P., P.L.B., R.P., E.P., S.B., M.L.S., Y.L.T., P.S., M.L., J.-M.T. and F.R.-G.; Software, F.R.; Supervision, J.-P.G. and F.R.-G.; Validation, J.-P.G., Y.L.T. and F.R.-G.; Writing—original draft, J.-P.G. and F.R.-G.; Writing—review & editing, F.R., H.G. and J.-M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

J.-P.G. received funds for communications and congress attendance from Pfizer and Gilead. The other authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. White, P.L.; Wingard, J.R.; Bretagne, S.; Löffler, J.; Patterson, T.F.; Slavin, M.A.; Barnes, R.A.; Pappas, P.G.; Donnelly, J.P. Aspergillus Polymerase Chain Reaction: Systematic Review of Evidence for Clinical Use in Comparison With Antigen Testing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2015, 61, 1293–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Donnelly, J.P.; Chen, S.C.; Kauffman, C.A.; Steinbach, W.J.; Baddley, J.W.; Verweij, P.E.; Clancy, C.J.; Wingard, J.R.; Lockhart, S.R.; Groll, A.H.; et al. Revision and Update of the Consensus Definitions of Invasive Fungal Disease From the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2019, ciz1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Blot, S.; Taccone, F.; Van den Abeele, A.; Meersseman, W.; Brusselaers, W.; Dimopoulos, G.; Paiva, J.; Misset, B.; Rello, J.; Vandewoude, K.; et al. A clinical algorithm to diagnose invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill patients. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2012, 186, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Bulpa, P.; Bihin, B.; Dimopoulos, G.; Taccone, F.S.; Van den Abeele, A.-M.; Misset, B.; Meersseman, W.; Spapen, H.; Cardoso, T.; Charles, P.-E.; et al. Which algorithm diagnoses invasive pulmonary aspergillosis best in ICU patients with COPD? Eur. Respir. J. 2017, 50, 1700532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Bassetti, M.; Giacobbe, D.R.; Grecchi, C.; Rebuffi, C.; Zuccaro, V.; Scudeller, L.; FUNDICU Investigators. Performance of existing definitions and tests for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in critically ill, adult patients: A systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis. J. Infect. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Arastehfar, A.; Carvalho, A.; van de Veerdonk, F.L.; Jenks, J.D.; Koehler, P.; Krause, R.; Cornely, O.A.; Perlin, D.S.; Lass-Flörl, C.; Hoenigl, M. COVID-19 Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis (CAPA)-From Immunology to Treatment. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Le Gall, J.R.; Lemeshow, S.; Saulnier, F. A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA 1993, 270, 2957–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lambden, S.; Laterre, P.F.; Levy, M.M.; Francois, B. The SOFA score-development, utility and challenges of accurate assessment in clinical trials. Crit. Care 2019, 23, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Cassagne, C.; Ranque, S.; Normand, A.-C.; Fourquet, P.; Thiebault, S.; Planard, C.; Hendrickx, M.; Piarroux, R. Mould Routine Identification in the Clinical Laboratory by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization Time-Of-Flight Mass Spectrometry. PLoS ONE 2011, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Normand, A.C.; Becker, P.; Gabriel, F.; Cassagne, C.; Accoceberry, I.; Gari-Toussaint, M.; Hasseine, L.; Geyter, D.D.; Pierard, D.; Surmont, I.; et al. Validation of a New Web Application for Identification of Fungi by Use of Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2017, 55, 2661–2670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Guegan, H.; Robert-Gangneux, F.; Camus, C.; Belaz, S.; Marchand, T.; Baldeyrou, M.; Gangneux, J.-P. Improving the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis by the detection of Aspergillus in broncho-alveolar lavage fluid: Comparison of non-culture-based assays. J. Infect. 2018, 76, 196–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Challier, S.; Boyer, S.; Abachin, E.; Berche, P. Development of a Serum-Based Taqman Real-Time PCR Assay for Diagnosis of Invasive Aspergillosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004, 42, 844–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Gangneux, J.-P.; Bougnoux, M.-E.; Hennequin, C.; Godet, C.; Chandenier, J.; Denning, D.W.; Dupont, B. An estimation of burden of serious fungal infections in France. J. Mycol. Med. 2016, 26, 385–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bitar, D.; Lortholary, O.; Le Strat, Y.; Nicolau, J.; Coignard, B.; Tattevin, P.; Che, D.; Dromer, F. Population-Based Analysis of Invasive Fungal Infections, France, 2001–2010. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2014, 20, 1163–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Verweij, P.E.; Gangneux, J.-P.; Bassetti, M.; Brüggemann, R.J.M.; Cornely, O.A.; Koehler, P.; Lass-Flörl, C.; van de Veerdonk, F.L.; Chakrabarti, A.; Hoenigl, M. Diagnosing COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis. Lancet Microbe 2020, 1, e53–e55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gangneux, J.-P.; Bougnoux, M.-E.; Dannaoui, E.; Cornet, M.; Zahar, J.R. Invasive fungal diseases during COVID-19: We should be prepared. J. Mycol. Med. 2020, 30, 100971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Alanio, A.; Dellière, S.; Fodil, S.; Bretagne, S.; Mégarbane, B. Prevalence of putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Lancet Respir. Med. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Blaize, M.; Mayaux, J.; Nabet, C.; Lampros, A.; Marcelin, A.-G.; Thellier, M.; Piarroux, R.; Demoule, A.; Fekkar, A. Fatal Invasive Aspergillosis and Coronavirus Disease in an Immunocompetent Patient. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2020, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Koehler, P.; Cornely, O.A.; Böttiger, B.W.; Dusse, F.; Eichenauer, D.A.; Fuchs, F.; Hallek, M.; Jung, N.; Klein, F.; Persigehl, T.; et al. COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis. Mycoses 2020, 63, 528–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Prattes, J.; Valentin, T.; Hoenigl, M.; Talakic, E.; Reisinger, A.C.; Eller, P. Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis complicating COVID-19 in the ICU—A case report. Med. Mycol. Case Rep. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Van Arkel, A.L.E.; Rijpstra, T.A.; Belderbos, H.N.A.; van Wijngaarden, P.; Verweij, P.E.; Bentvelsen, R.G. COVID-19 Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Lescure, F.-X.; Bouadma, L.; Nguyen, D.; Parisey, M.; Wicky, P.-H.; Behillil, S.; Gaymard, A.; Bouscambert-Duchamp, M.; Donati, F.; Hingrat, Q.L.; et al. Clinical and virological data of the first cases of COVID-19 in Europe: A case series. Lancet Infect. Dis 2020, 20, 697–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Rutsaert, L.; Steinfort, N.; Van Hunsel, T.; Bomans, P.; Naesens, R.; Mertes, H.; Dits, H.; Van Regenmortel, N. COVID-19-associated invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Ann. Intensive Care 2020, 10, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. White, P.L.; Posso, R.B.; Barnes, R.A. Analytical and Clinical Evaluation of the PathoNostics AsperGenius Assay for Detection of Invasive Aspergillosis and Resistance to Azole Antifungal Drugs during Testing of Serum Samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2015, 53, 2115–2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Bulpa, P.; Dive, A.; Sibille, Y. Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur. Respir. J. 2007, 30, 782–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Denning, D.W.; Cadranel, J.; Beigelman-Aubry, C.; Ader, F.; Chakrabarti, A.; Blot, S.; Ullmann, A.J.; Dimopoulos, G.; Lange, C.; on behalf of European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases and European Respiratory Society. Chronic pulmonary aspergillosis: Rationale and clinical guidelines for diagnosis and management. Eur. Respir. J. 2016, 47, 45–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Honore, P.M.; Barreto Gutierrez, L.; Kugener, L.; Redant, S.; Attou, R.; Gallerani, A.; De Bels, D. Detecting influenza-associated pulmonary aspergillosis by determination of galactomannan in broncho-alveolar lavage fluid and in serum: Should we add (1,3)-beta-D-glucan to improve efficacy. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Correlation between molecular and cultural quantification of Aspergillus burden in respiratory samples (rare: 1–2 CFU/plate; few: 2–5; numerous: >5). * significantly different with p < 0.05. ** significantly different with p < 0.01.
Figure 1. Correlation between molecular and cultural quantification of Aspergillus burden in respiratory samples (rare: 1–2 CFU/plate; few: 2–5; numerous: >5). * significantly different with p < 0.05. ** significantly different with p < 0.01.
Jof 06 00105 g001
Figure 2. Computed tomography of the chest of patients with COVID-19 with secondary invasive aspergillosis. Unenhanced chest CT in a 59-year-old man with COVID-19 and biological markers of invasive aspergillosis performed at baseline (A) and at 12-day follow-up (B) showing subpleural ground-glass and reticular opacities presumed to correspond to COVID-19 lesions (arrowheads) as well as a right apical consolidation area presumed to correspond to invasive aspergillosis (arrow). Enhanced chest CT in a 69-year-old man with COVID-19 and biological markers of invasive aspergillosis showing at baseline (C) ground-glass opacities (arrowheads), and at 11-day follow-up (D) a left postero-basal consolidation presumed to correspond to invasive aspergillosis (arrow). (346-mm field of view, 512 × 512 image matrix, lung window (W1600/L-500 HU)).
Figure 2. Computed tomography of the chest of patients with COVID-19 with secondary invasive aspergillosis. Unenhanced chest CT in a 59-year-old man with COVID-19 and biological markers of invasive aspergillosis performed at baseline (A) and at 12-day follow-up (B) showing subpleural ground-glass and reticular opacities presumed to correspond to COVID-19 lesions (arrowheads) as well as a right apical consolidation area presumed to correspond to invasive aspergillosis (arrow). Enhanced chest CT in a 69-year-old man with COVID-19 and biological markers of invasive aspergillosis showing at baseline (C) ground-glass opacities (arrowheads), and at 11-day follow-up (D) a left postero-basal consolidation presumed to correspond to invasive aspergillosis (arrow). (346-mm field of view, 512 × 512 image matrix, lung window (W1600/L-500 HU)).
Jof 06 00105 g002
Table 1. Diagnostic criteria of the AspICU clinical algorithm according to Blot et al., 2012, and proposal of a modified AspICU algorithm.
Table 1. Diagnostic criteria of the AspICU clinical algorithm according to Blot et al., 2012, and proposal of a modified AspICU algorithm.
ClassificationAspICU According to Blot et al., 2012 [3]AspICU Algorithm Incorporating PCRModified AspICU Algorithm Incorporating PCR, Serology and Angioinvasion Biomarkers
Definition of colonizationAspergillus-positive culture endotracheal aspirate aloneAspergillus-positive culture/PCR endotracheal aspirate aloneAspergillus-positive culture/PCR endotracheal aspirate in one sample, not confirmed on a second sample or using blood biomarker
Definition of putative IA>1 criterion among:
1. Aspergillus-positive culture endotracheal aspirate
2. Compatible clinical signs
3. Abnormal thoracic medical imaging on CT scan or X-ray
4a. Host risk factors
Or 4b. Semiquantitative Aspergillus-positive culture of BAL fluid + positive direct microscopy
>1 criterion among:
1. Aspergillus-positive culture/PCR endotracheal aspirate
2. Compatible clinical signs
3. Abnormal thoracic medical imaging on CT scan or X-ray
4a. Host risk factors
Or 4b. Semiquantitative Aspergillus-positive culture/PCR of BAL fluid + positive direct microscopy
>1 criterion among:
1. Aspergillus-positive culture/PCR endotracheal aspirate in repeated samples with negative anti-Aspergillus antibody testing
2. Compatible clinical signs
3. Abnormal thoracic medical imaging on CT scan or X-ray
4a. Host risk factors
Or 4b. Semiquantitative Aspergillus-positive culture/PCR of BAL fluid + positive direct microscopy
Definition of probable IA--Putative IA + one positive blood biomarker (GM and/or PCR)
Definition of proven IAPositive histopathologyPositive histopathologyPositive histopathology
GM: galactomannan.
Table 2. Classification of 45 COVID-19 patients with ARDS according to AspICU and to modified AspICU algorithms.
Table 2. Classification of 45 COVID-19 patients with ARDS according to AspICU and to modified AspICU algorithms.
ClassificationAspICU According to Blot et al., 2012 [3]AspICU Algorithm Incorporating PCRModified AspICU Algorithm Incorporating PCR, Serology and Angioinvasion Biomarkers
No infection363030
Colonization008
Putative IA9154
Probable IA--3
Proven IA000
Table 3. Demographic characteristics and clinical and biological baseline characteristics.
Table 3. Demographic characteristics and clinical and biological baseline characteristics.
Demographic CharacteristicsAll Patients (n = 45)No Aspergillosis (n = 30)Aspergillus Colonization (n = 8)Putative/Probable Invasive Aspergillosis (n = 7)p Value
Age, years60 (53–71)59 (54–68)53 (51–71)70 (63–75)0.14
Sex
Men
Women
32 (71.1)
13 (28.9)
21 (70)
9 (30)
7 (87.5)
1 (12.5)
4 (57.1)
3 (42.8)
0.42
BMI27 (24.4–31.4)27.5 (24.7–32.3)27 (25.2–30.7)25.2 (23.2–26.4)0.99
Current smoking3 (6.7)2 (4.4)01 (12.5)0.54
Coexisting conditions
Any31 (68.9)19 (63)6 (75)6 (85.7)0.47
Diabetes17 (37.8)12 (40)3 (37.5)2 (28.6)0.74
Hypertension15 (33.3)7 (23.3)5 (62.5)3 (42.9)0.1
Solid cancer1 (2.2)1 (3.3)000.77
Hemopathy2 (4.4)1 (3.3)01 (14.3)0.54
Cardiovascular disease3 (6.7)3 (10)2 (25)2 (28.6)0.34
Chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease
0000-
Chronic kidney disease4 (8.9)2 (6.7)1 (12.5)1 (14.3)0.83
Temperature (°C)38 (37–38.9)37.5 (337–38.4)38.2 (37.9–39)38.2 (37.7–38.8)0.29
Heart rate (/min)100 (80–110)94 (80–110)104 (100–110)102 (85–119)0.63
Systolic pressure94 (87–107)93 (85–105)103 (100–109)90 (82–102)0.34
White blood cell count (109/L)9.8 (6.8–12.9)9.7 (6.9–13)9.9 (7–10.7)9.9 (6.7–12.9)0.97
Neutrophil count (109/L)7.9 (4.5–10.8)7 (4.9–10.5)8.5 (5.2–8.6)5.6 (3.5–10.4)0.8
Lymphocyte count (109/L)0.81 (0.58–1.11)0.83 (0.53–1.14)0.7 (0.63–1.1)0.72 (0.58–0.81)0.87
Hemoglobin (g/L)10.8 (9.5–12.5)10 (9.4–12)11.8 (10.6–13.6)11 (10.5–13.6)0.12
Platelet count (109/L)264 (194–357)282 (220–364)244 (184–347)162 (129–262)0.12
Total bilirubin concentration (µmol/L)8 (5.5–12)8.5 (6–12)11 (9–13)7 (5.5–8)0.72
Creatinine (µmol/L)81 (53–162)71 (51–109)81 (73–173)101 (82–184)0.15
C-reactive protein (CRP) (mg/L)157 (112–263)155 (112–265)112 (102–131)112 (109–178)0.03
Ratio of PaO2 to FiO2152 (100–181)164 (107–214)120 (94–214)136 (72–155)0.25
SAPS II score on day 142 (31–57)35 (30–58)42 (21–55)43 (35–82)0.55
SOFA score on day 17 (2–11)7 (4–10)5 (2–10)9 (2–12)0.76
Data are presented as median (IQR: interquartiles), n (%). P values comparing Aspergillus colonization, invasive aspergillosis and no aspergillosis groups are tested by Kruskal–Wallis (continuous variables) or Chi-square test (categorical variables). Abbreviations: BMI: Body mass index; SAPS II: Simplified Acute Physiology Score II; SOFA: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, PaO2: arterial oxygen tension.
Table 4. Concordance of PCR and cultures on respiratory samples (n = 211) to detect the presence of Aspergillus.
Table 4. Concordance of PCR and cultures on respiratory samples (n = 211) to detect the presence of Aspergillus.
Respiratory SamplesPositive CultureNegative CultureTotal
Positive PCR151934
Negative PCR1 *176177
Total16191211
* positive culture with Aspergillus tubingensis (Nigri section).
Table 5. Concordance of 28S PCR and galactomannan (GM) in serum samples (n = 32).
Table 5. Concordance of 28S PCR and galactomannan (GM) in serum samples (n = 32).
Serum SamplesPositive GMNegative GMTotal
Positive PCR213
Negative PCR12829
Total32932
Table 6. Mycological results and classification of 45 COVID-19 patients with ARDS.
Table 6. Mycological results and classification of 45 COVID-19 patients with ARDS.
PatientRespiratory SamplesSerum SamplesIA Classification According to
Aspergillus Positive Culture (nb Samples)Positive 28S PCR (nb Samples)GM Index > 0.5 (nb Samples)Positive 28S PCR (nb Samples)AspICU (Blot et al., 2012)AspICU + PCRModified AspICU
15522putativeputativeprobable
22211putativeputativeprobable
30301no infectionputativeprobable
44600putativeputativeputative
54400putativeputativeputative
62500putativeputativeputative
71500putativeputativeputative
81100putativeputativecolonization
91010putativeputativecolonization
101 *000putativeputativecolonization
110100no infectionputativecolonization
120100no infectionputativecolonization
130100no infectionputativecolonization
140100no infectionputativecolonization
150100no infectionputativecolonization
16–450000no infectionno infectionno infection
Total 9 putative (22%) 36 no infection15 putative (33%)
30 no infection
3 probable (7%) 4 putative (9%) 8 colonizations (18%) 30 no infection
IA. Invasive aspergillosis, 1 * Aspergillus tubingensis (Nigri section).
Table 7. Outcomes of patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS according to Aspergillus status.
Table 7. Outcomes of patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS according to Aspergillus status.
OutcomesAll Patients (n = 45)No Aspergillosis (n = 30)Aspergillus Colonization (n = 8)Putative/Probable Invasive Aspergillosis (n = 7)p Value
Duration of mechanical ventilation17 (9–24)17 (7–24)18 (10–21)18 (12–30)0.66
Ventilator free days at day 2811 (4–19)11 (4–21)10 (7–18)10 (0–16)0.64
Prone positioning ventilation20 (44)12 (46)3 (37.5)5 (71.4)0.29
SOFA score on day 77 (5–11)6 (5–10)8 (7–10)11 (10–12)0.01
SOFA score on day 147 (2–10)7 (2–9)3 (1–7)9 (2–12)0.2
ICU length of stay20 (12–27)12 (11–23)23 (16–51)27 (20–36)0.02
Death in ICU6 (13.3)4 (13.3)02 * (28.6)0.27
Data are presented as median (IQR: interquartiles), n (%). P values comparing Aspergillus colonization, invasive aspergillosis and no aspergillosis groups are tested by Kruskal Wallis (continuous variables) or Chi-square test (categorical variables). Abbreviations: ICU: Intensive Care Unit, SOFA: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, * 1 putative and 1 probable.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gangneux, J.-P.; Reizine, F.; Guegan, H.; Pinceaux, K.; Le Balch, P.; Prat, E.; Pelletier, R.; Belaz, S.; Le Souhaitier, M.; Le Tulzo, Y.; et al. Is the COVID-19 Pandemic a Good Time to Include Aspergillus Molecular Detection to Categorize Aspergillosis in ICU Patients? A Monocentric Experience. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6030105

AMA Style

Gangneux J-P, Reizine F, Guegan H, Pinceaux K, Le Balch P, Prat E, Pelletier R, Belaz S, Le Souhaitier M, Le Tulzo Y, et al. Is the COVID-19 Pandemic a Good Time to Include Aspergillus Molecular Detection to Categorize Aspergillosis in ICU Patients? A Monocentric Experience. Journal of Fungi. 2020; 6(3):105. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6030105

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gangneux, Jean-Pierre, Florian Reizine, Hélène Guegan, Kieran Pinceaux, Pierre Le Balch, Emilie Prat, Romain Pelletier, Sorya Belaz, Mathieu Le Souhaitier, Yves Le Tulzo, and et al. 2020. "Is the COVID-19 Pandemic a Good Time to Include Aspergillus Molecular Detection to Categorize Aspergillosis in ICU Patients? A Monocentric Experience" Journal of Fungi 6, no. 3: 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6030105

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop