Search

In immunocompromised patients, pneumonia presents a diagnostic challenge due to diverse etiologies, nonspecific symptoms, overlapping radiological presentation, frequent co-infections, and the potential for rapid progression to severe disease. Thus, timely and accurate diagnosis of all pathogens is crucial. This narrative review explores the latest advancements in microbiological diagnostic techniques for pneumonia in immunocompromised patients. It covers major available microbiological tools for diagnosing both community-acquired and hospital-acquired pneumonia, encompassing a wide spectrum of pathogens including bacterial, viral, fungal, and parasitic. While traditional culture methods remain pivotal in identifying many pneumonia-causing etiologies, their limitations in sensitivity and time to results have led to the rise of non-invasive antigen tests and molecular diagnostics. These are increasingly employed alongside cultures and microscopy for more efficient diagnosis, mainly in viral and fungal infections. Lastly, we report the future of pneumonia diagnostics, exploring the potential of metagenomics and CRISPR/Cas13a for more precise and rapid pathogen detection in immunocompromised populations.

Background: Ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (N/r) is an antiviral which targets the main viral protease, administered to prevent the progression of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. We present a real-life case-control study evaluating the efficacy of N/r therapy in SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants positive outpatients in Campania region, Italy, with the aim of assessing the occurrence of three outcomes (hospital admission, admission in ICU and death) in cases and controls., Methods: We enrolled SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects that came to our attention in Early antiviral treatment ambulatory of Infectious Diseases ward of University Federico II of Naples, Italy from January 1st, 2022, to December 31st, 2022, during the first five days from symptoms occurrence. Patients were enrolled as cases or controls if they were treated with N/r or not treated at all, respectively., Results: 1064 patients were included (cases: 423, controls: 1184). Cases showed a lower mortality compared with controls while no differences were observed for other outcomes. Vaccinated patients showed a lower mortality compared with non-vaccinated ones (0.5% vs. 7.8%, p < 0.001). After full-matching propensity score, N/r reduced hospitalization rate only in unvaccinated patients. In contrast N/r significantly reduced mortality regardless of vaccination status., Conclusions: Treatment with N/r has proven effective in reducing mortality among outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection during several omicron variant surges. The beneficial effect of N/r treatment in reducing progression is more pronounced in unvaccinated patients., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethical approval and consent to participate: This study was approved by the ethics committee “Comitato Etico Università Federico II-A.O.R.N. A.Cardarelli” (protocol number 0015191, 22nd March 2023). The informed consent was collected for all patients included in the study. The informed consent from control patients was obtained via telephone interview. This method of consent collection was thoroughly reviewed by the ethics committee, ensuring that it met all ethical standards. The informed consent from case patients was written. The records of the telephonic interviews conducted with control participants, included their verbal informed consent, are stored by the study’s data manager at the Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Via Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy. These can be retrieved and reviewed upon request by any relevant authority. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: Prof. IVAN GENTILE reports personal fees from MSD, AbbVie, Gilead, Pfizer, GSK, SOBI, Nordic/Infecto Pharm, Angelini and Abbott, as well as departmental grants from Gilead and support for attending a meeting from Janssen, outside the submitted work.All other authors have no competing interests to declare., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir were the first available oral antivirals (OAs) active against SARS-CoV-2. Trials evaluating the efficacy of OAs involved patients unvaccinated and infected with variants different from those currently circulating. We conducted a retrospective study on patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with OAs during the omicron surge in Italy in order to provide real-life data on the efficacy and safety of OAs during the omicron surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among 257 patients, 56.8% received molnupiravir, while 43.2% received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Patients in the molnupiravir group were older, had a lower body mass index, and had a higher rate of chronic heart disease than those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Three hospitalizations were recorded in the molnupiravir (2.1%) group and one in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (0.9%) group. One patient treated with molnupiravir died. The median time to negativity was 8 days in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group vs. 10 days in the molnupiravir group, p < 0.01. We recorded 37 ADRs (mainly dysgeusia, diarrhea, and nausea) in 31 individuals (12.1%). Only two patients (0.8%) treated with molnupiravir terminated treatment due to ADRs. In conclusion, in a population of mostly vaccinated patients treated with OAs, we observed a low rate of hospitalization, death, and adverse drug reactions. These rates were lower than those reported in pivotal trials.

Background: Among the several therapeutic options assessed for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), tocilizumab (TCZ), an antagonist of the interleukine-6 receptor, has emerged as a promising therapeutic choice, especially for the severe form of the disease. Proper synthesis of the available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is needed to inform clinical practice., Methods: A systematic review with a meta-analysis of RCTs investigating the efficacy of TCZ in COVID-19 patients was conducted. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register were searched up until 30 April 2021., Results: The database search yielded 2885 records; 11 studies were considered eligible for full-text review, and nine met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 3358 patients composed the TCZ arm, and 3131 the comparator group. The main outcome was all-cause mortality at 28-30 days. Subgroup analyses according to trials' and patients' features were performed. A trial sequential analysis (TSA) was also carried out to minimize type I and type II errors. According to the fixed-effect model approach, TCZ was associated with a better survival odds ratio (OR) (0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-0.94; I 2 : 24% (low heterogeneity)). The result was consistent in the subgroup of severe disease (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.74-0.93; I 2 : 53% (moderate heterogeneity)). However, the TSA illustrated that the required information size was not met unless the study that was the major source of heterogeneity was omitted., Conclusions: TCZ may represent an important weapon against severe COVID-19. Further studies are needed to consolidate this finding.