Individuals with COVID-19 who have undergone solid organ transplant (SOT) experience higher mortality and prolonged viral shedding compared with the general population.^1-5 Multiple vaccine platforms have been proven successful in reducing viral spread and preventing poor outcomes in the general population.^6-8 Unfortunately, recipients of SOT were excluded from the initial licensing trials of these vaccines, and accumulating data have shown reduced immunogenicity among recipients of SOT.^9-14

A number of observational studies have found an association between low vitamin D levels and risk of sepsis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the overall estimate of risk. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by online searches (CENTRAL, PubMed/MEDLINE, and EMBASE) was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42014014767). Primary outcome was incidence, prevalence, relative risk or odds ratio of having sepsis or bloodstream infection between patients with vitamin D deficiency and controls. The initial search yielded 647 articles. Twenty-one articles underwent full-length review and data were extracted from 10 observational studies. Pooled odds ratio of sepsis in participants with vitamin D deficiency was 1.78 (95 % confidence interval [CI] = 1.55 to 2.03, p < 0.01) compared with controls in studies that reported participant numbers and was 1.45 (95 % CI = 1.26 to 1.66, p < 0.01) in studies that reported an adjusted odds ratio of vitamin D deficiency for developing sepsis. Statistical between-study heterogeneity was low (I2 = 0 % and 5 %, respectively). Standardized mean difference of 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in patients with sepsis and controls was −0.24 (95 % CI = −0.49 to 0.00, p = 0.05) and lower in the sepsis group compared with non-sepsis or control participants. The statistical between-study heterogeneity (I2) was 0 %. Vitamin D deficiency were associated with an increased susceptibility of sepsis.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) occurs in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Risks and outcomes remain poorly understood. A retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to 5 Johns Hopkins hospitals was conducted between March and August 2020. CAPA was defined using composite clinical criteria. Fine and Gray competing risks regression was used to analyze clinical outcomes and, multilevel mixed-effects ordinal logistic regression was used to compare longitudinal disease severity scores. In the cohort of 396 people, 39 met criteria for CAPA. Patients with CAPA were more likely than those without CAPA to have underlying pulmonary vascular disease (41% vs 21.6%, respectively; P = .01), liver disease (35.9% vs 18.2%; P = .02), coagulopathy (51.3% vs 33.1%; P = .03), solid tumors (25.6% vs 10.9%; P = .02), multiple myeloma (5.1% vs 0.3%; P = .03), and corticosteroid exposure during the index admission (66.7% vs 42.6%; P = .005), and had lower body mass indexes (median, 26.6 vs 29.9 [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]; P = .04). Patients with CAPA had worse outcomes, as measured by ordinal severity of disease scores, requiring longer time to improvement (adjusted odds ratio, _1.081.09_1.1; P < .001), and advancing in severity almost twice as quickly (subhazard ratio, _1.31.8_2.5; P < .001). They were intubated twice as long as those without CAPA (subhazard ratio, _0.40.5_0.6; P < .001) and had longer hospital stays (median [interquartile range], 41.1 [20.5–72.4) vs 18.5 [10.7–31.8] days; P < .001). CAPA is associated with poor outcomes. Attention to preventive measures (screening and/or prophylaxis) is warranted in people with high risk of CAPA.

Human pythiosis is a life-threatening disease for which no standard treatment protocols with proven efficacy exist. We present the results of our institutional pythiosis treatment protocol, composed of surgery, antifungal agents, iron chelator (only vascular cases) and immunotherapy. We retrospectively analysed patients with proven vascular and ocular pythiosis in King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital from April 2003 to May 2013. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's rank-sum test were used. The MICs of seven antifungal agents and combination drugs were investigated in eight clinical Pythium insidiosum strains. Eighteen patients were evaluated. Disease-free surgical margins were obtained in all surviving patients with vascular pythiosis (P = 0.08). Patients who underwent eye enucleation were significantly older than those who did not (P < 0.05). Patients with vascular or ocular pythiosis did not differ significantly in the median time from disease onset to first surgery or in the relationship between the type of P. insidiosum antigen and treatment outcomes. In vitro susceptibility profiles of all isolates demonstrated that no single agent or combination treatment was substantially more effective than the others. The highest MIC was detected for amphotericin B, followed in order by voriconazole, fluconazole, anidulafungin, caspofungin, itraconazole and terbinafine. No synergistic effects of the combination drug treatments were found. Surgery with adequate surgical margins is a crucial determinant of survival in patients with vascular pythiosis. Itraconazole and terbinafine do not have synergistic effects on Thai P. insidiosum strains. The role of immunotherapy remains inconclusive for both vascular and ocular pythiosis.

Immunosuppression and comorbidities might place solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients at higher risk from COVID-19, as suggested by recent case series. We compared 45 SOT vs. 2427 non-SOT patients who were admitted with COVID-19 to our health-care system (March 1, 2020 - August 21, 2020), evaluating hospital length-of-stay and inpatient mortality using competing-risks regression. We compared trajectories of WHO COVID-19 severity scale using mixed-effects ordinal logistic regression, adjusting for severity score at admission. SOT and non-SOT patients had comparable age, sex, and race, but SOT recipients were more likely to have diabetes (60% vs. 34%, p < .001), hypertension (69% vs. 44%, p = .001), HIV (7% vs. 1.4%, p = .024), and peripheral vascular disorders (19% vs. 8%, p = .018). There were no statistically significant differences between SOT and non-SOT in maximum illness severity score (p = .13), length-of-stay (sHR: _0.9 1.1_1.4 , p = .5), or mortality (sHR: _0.1 0.4_1.6 , p = .19), although the severity score on admission was slightly lower for SOT (median [IQR] 3 [3, 4]) than for non-SOT (median [IQR] 4 [3-4]) (p = .042) Despite a higher risk profile, SOT recipients had a faster decline in disease severity over time (OR = _0.76 0.81_0.86 , p < .001) compared with non-SOT patients. These findings have implications for transplant decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic, and insights about the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on immunosuppressed patients.