Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can become complicated by secondary invasive fungal infections (IFIs), stemming primarily from severe lung damage and immunologic deficits associated with the virus or immunomodulatory therapy. Other risk factors include poorly controlled diabetes, structural lung disease and/or other comorbidities, and fungal colonization. Opportunistic IFI following severe respiratory viral illness has been increasingly recognized, most notably with severe influenza. There have been many reports of fungal infections associated with COVID-19, initially predominated by pulmonary aspergillosis, but with recent emergence of mucormycosis, candidiasis, and endemic mycoses. These infections can be challenging to diagnose and are associated with poor outcomes. The reported incidence of IFI has varied, often related to heterogeneity in patient populations, surveillance protocols, and definitions used for classification of fungal infections. Herein, we review IFI complicating COVID-19 and address knowledge gaps related to epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of COVID-19-associated fungal infections.

On April 25, 2019, a farm tractor towing two 2-ton ammonia tanks on a county road in Lake County, Illinois, experienced a mechanical failure that resulted in the release of anhydrous ammonia, a colorless, pungent, irritating gas that can cause severe respiratory and ocular damage (1). Approximately 80% of anhydrous ammonia produced in the United States is used as a fertilizer in agriculture (1). Eighty-three persons, including first responders, motorists, and neighborhood residents, were evaluated at area hospitals because of exposure to the gas. Two weeks after the release, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and CDC's National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) collaborated with the Lake County Health Department and the Illinois Department of Public Health on an investigation using ATSDR's Assessment of Chemical Exposures program to describe the release, review the emergency response, and determine health effects associated with the exposure. First responders, community residents, and hospital personnel reported communication challenges related to the nature of the gas release and effective protective measures. Among the 83 persons evaluated at six area hospitals for effects of the chemical release, 14 (17%) were hospitalized, including eight (10%) who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), seven (8%) of whom required endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation; no deaths occurred. In addition, ICU health care providers experienced symptoms of secondary exposure. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's Emergency Responder Health Monitoring and Surveillance Program has specific recommendations and tools to protect responders during all phases of a response (2). Hospitals also need to review institutional policies and procedures for chemical mass casualty events, including decontamination (3). Prompt and correct identification of hazardous material (hazmat) events, and clear communication among responding entities, including on-scene and hospital responders, is important to ensure effective response after a chemical release.