Abstract
Background COVID-19 is infrequently complicated by secondary bacterial infection, but nevertheless antibiotic prescriptions are common. We used community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) as a benchmark to define the processes that occur in a bacterial pulmonary infection, and tested the hypothesis that baseline inflammatory markers and their response to antibiotic therapy could distinguish CAP from COVID-19.
Methods In patients admitted to Royal Free Hospital (RFH) and Barnet Hospital (BH) we defined CAP by lobar consolidation on chest radiograph, and COVID-19 by SARS-CoV-2 detection by PCR. Data were derived from routine laboratory investigations.
Results On admission all CAP and >90% COVID-19 patients received antibiotics. We identified 106 CAP and 619 COVID-19 patients at RFH. CAP was characterised by elevated white cell count (WCC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) compared to COVID-19 (median WCC 12.48 (IQR 8.2-15.3) vs 6.78 (IQR 5.2-9.5) x106 cells/ml and median CRP CRP 133.5 (IQR 65-221) vs 86 (IQR 42-160) mg/L). Blood samples collected 48-72 hours into admission revealed decreasing CRP in CAP but not COVID-19 (CRP difference −33 (IQR −112 to +3.5) vs +15 (IQR −15 to +70) mg/L respectively). In the independent validation cohort (BH) consisting of 169 CAP and 181 COVID-19 patients, admission WCC >8.2×106 cells/ml or falling CRP during admission identified 95% of CAP cases, and predicted the absence of bacterial co-infection in 45% of COVID-19 patients.
Conclusions We propose that in COVID-19 the absence of both elevated baseline WCC and antibiotic-related decrease in CRP can exclude bacterial co-infection and facilitate antibiotic stewardship efforts.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Lectureship to GP.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was reviewed and approved by the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust's Research and Innovation Group, which serves as the local Institutional Review Board. It stated that the current project was a retrospective audit of routine clinical care and anonymised clinical data being analysed for service development purposes, and that therefore further formal ethical approval was not required. The study has also been registered with the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust Clinical Audit department.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Further details on the anonymised clinical data used in this manuscript are available on request from the corresponding author.
