Cited by 1,662COVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesAntibiotic Use and ResistanceAntifungal resistance and susceptibility

Bacterial and Fungal Coinfection in Individuals With Coronavirus: A Rapid Review To Support COVID-19 Antimicrobial Prescribing

Open access
Rawson, Timothy M, Moore, Luke S P, Zhu, Nina, Ranganathan, Nishanthy, Skolimowska, Keira, Gilchrist, Mark, Satta, Giovanni, Cooke, Graham +1 more·2020·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To explore and describe the current literature surrounding bacterial/fungal coinfection in patients with coronavirus infection. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched using broad-based search criteria relating to coronavirus and bacterial coinfection. Articles presenting clinical data for patients with coronavirus infection (defined as SARS-1, MERS, SARS-CoV-2, and other coronavirus) and bacterial/fungal coinfection reported in English, Mandarin, or Italian were included. Data describing bacterial/fungal coinfections, treatments, and outcomes were extracted. Secondary analysis of studies reporting antimicrobial prescribing in SARS-CoV-2 even in absence of coinfection was performed. RESULTS: 1007 abstracts were identified. Eighteen full texts reporting bacterial/fungal coinfection were included. Most studies did not identify or report bacterial/fungal coinfection (85/140; 61%). Nine of 18 (50%) studies reported on COVID-19, 5/18 (28%) on SARS-1, 1/18 (6%) on MERS, and 3/18 (17%) on other coronaviruses. For COVID-19, 62/806 (8%) patients were reported as experiencing bacterial/fungal coinfection during hospital admission. Secondary analysis demonstrated wide use of broad-spectrum antibacterials, despite a paucity of evidence for bacterial coinfection. On secondary analysis, 1450/2010 (72%) of patients reported received antimicrobial therapy. No antimicrobial stewardship interventions were described. For non-COVID-19 cases, bacterial/fungal coinfection was reported in 89/815 (11%) of patients. Broad-spectrum antibiotic use was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite frequent prescription of broad-spectrum empirical antimicrobials in patients with coronavirus-associated respiratory infections, there is a paucity of data to support the association with respiratory bacterial/fungal coinfection. Generation of prospective evidence to support development of antimicrobial policy and appropriate stewardship interventions specific for the COVID-19 pandemic is urgently required.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cid/ciaa530

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • 1450/2010 (72%) of COVID-19 patients received antimicrobial therapy.

    “It’s reported that 1450/2010 (72%) of COVID-19 patients received antimicrobial therapy (Rawson et al., 2020).”

    From Oral Microbiome and SARS-CoV-2: Beware of Lung Co-infection (2020) · cites this paper as Rawson et al., 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rawson, T. M., Moore, L. S. P., Zhu, N., Ranganathan, N., Skolimowska, K., Gilchrist, M., Satta, G., Cooke, G., & Holmes, A.
Affiliations
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
  • Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Holmes, Alison
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2020-05-02
Volume
71
Issue
9
Pages
2459-2468
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W3023977941
Cited by
1,662
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 86 · 2024: 143 · 2023: 299 · 2022: 373 · 2021: 464 · 2020: 235 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
16.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Centre for Antimicrobial Optimisation at Imperial College London
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
Keywords
bacterial co-infection, fungal co-infection, COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, MERS, antimicrobial prescribing, broad-spectrum antibiotics, antimicrobial stewardship, empirical antimicrobial therapy
MeSH terms
Antimicrobial Stewardship, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Drug Treatment, Anti-Infective Agents, Bacterial Infections, Drug Resistance, Microbial, Humans, Mycoses, Coinfection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review