More Than a Decade Since the Latest CONSORT Non-inferiority Trials Extension: Do Infectious Diseases Trials Do Enough?

More than a decade after the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials group released a reporting items checklist for non-inferiority randomized controlled trials, the infectious diseases literature continues to underreport these items. Trialists, journals, and peer reviewers should redouble their efforts to ensure infectious diseases studies meet these minimum reporting standards.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Serologic Testing.

BACKGROUND: The role of serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 has evolved during the pandemic as seroprevalence in global populations has increased. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct updated best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is an update to the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based recommendations and identify unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, decisions related to vaccination and administration of monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma in immunocompromised patients, and identification of a serologic correlate of immunity. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature reviewed, identified, and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel recommends against serologic testing to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first two weeks after symptom onset (strong recommendations, low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing should not be used to provide evidence of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients with a high clinical suspicion and repeatedly negative nucleic acid amplification test results (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing may assist with the diagnosis of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). To seek evidence for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the panel suggests testing for IgG, IgG/IgM, or total antibodies to nucleocapsid protein three to five weeks after symptom onset (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). In individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, we suggest against routine serologic testing given no demonstrated benefit to improving patient outcomes (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence.) The panel acknowledges further that a negative spike antibody test may be a useful metric to identify immunocompromised patients who are candidates for immune therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The high seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 worldwide limits the utility of detecting anti-SARS CoV-2 antibody. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for diagnosis was graded as very low to low. Future studies should use serologic assays calibrated to a common reference standard.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (December 2023).

Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and for identifying asymptomatic carriage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The number of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests continues to increase as does the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss nuances of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlight important unmet research needs related to COVID-19 diagnostic testing. IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel agreed on 12 diagnostic recommendations. Access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention, and the public health response to COVID-19 infection. Information on the clinical performance of available tests continues to grow, but the quality of evidence of the current literature to support this updated molecular diagnostic guideline remains moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is suggested for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions. Evidence in support of rapid testing and testing of upper respiratory specimens other than nasopharyngeal swabs, which offer logistical advantages, is sufficient to warrant conditional recommendations in favor of these approaches.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing.

BACKGROUND: Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the IDSA. OBJECTIVE: The IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and non-medical settings. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through April 1, 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel made ten diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. CONCLUSIONS: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared to nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms, and in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In contrast, Ag tests have high specificity, and, in most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared to testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remains the testing method of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

Examining the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on community virus prevalence and healthcare utilisation reveals that peaks in asthma, COPD and respiratory tract infection occur with the re-emergence of rhino/enterovirus.

INTRODUCTION: Airway disease exacerbations are cyclical related to respiratory virus prevalence. The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with reduced exacerbations possibly related to public health measures and their impact on non-COVID-19 respiratory viruses. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of non-COVID-19 respiratory viruses during the pandemic compared with prior in Ontario, Canada and healthcare utilisation related to asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and respiratory tract infection. METHODS: This is a population-based retrospective analysis of respiratory virus tests, emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalisations between 2015 and 2021 in Ontario. Weekly virus testing data were used to estimate viral prevalence for all non-COVID-19 respiratory viruses. We plotted the %positivity and observed and expected counts of each virus to visualise the impact of the pandemic. We used Poisson and binomial logistic regression models to estimate the change in %positivity, count of positive viral cases and count of healthcare utilisation during the pandemic. RESULTS: The prevalence of all non-COVID-19 respiratory viruses decreased dramatically during the pandemic compared with prior. Comparing periods, the incidence rate ratio (IRR) for positive cases corresponded to a >90% reduction for non-COVID-19 respiratory viruses except adenovirus and rhino/enterovirus. Asthma-related ED visits and hospital admissions fell by 57% (IRR 0.43 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.48)) and 61% (IRR 0.39 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.46)). COPD-related ED visits and admissions fell by 63% (IRR 0.37 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.45)) and 45% (IRR 0.55 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.62)). Respiratory tract infection ED visits and admissions fell by 85% (IRR 0.15 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.22)), and 85% (IRR 0.15 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.24)). Rather than the usual peaks in disease condition, during the pandemic, healthcare utilisation peaked in October when rhino/enterovirus peaked. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of nearly all non-COVID-19 respiratory viruses decreased during the pandemic and was associated with marked reductions in ED visits and hospitalisations. The re-emergence of rhino/enterovirus was associated with increased healthcare utilisation.

Respiratory protection: what SARS-CoV-2 has taught us.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarizes the epidemiological evidence for respiratory personal protective equipment for SARA-CoV-2, a topic of considerable controversy. RECENT FINDINGS: The main findings are that the observational studies and non-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) randomized trials do not provide clear evidence that the N95 respirators offer superior protection over surgical masks. A randomized controlled trial on COVID-19 provides evidence that the absolute risk to healthcare workers over time using surgical masks is similar to N95 respirators. SUMMARY: The implications of the findings are that surgical masks and N95 respirators can be considered for respiratory protection in healthcare workers.

Medical Masks Versus N95 Respirators for Preventing COVID-19 Among Health Care Workers : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain if medical masks offer similar protection against COVID-19 compared with N95 respirators. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether medical masks are noninferior to N95 respirators to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers providing routine care. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04296643). SETTING: 29 health care facilities in Canada, Israel, Pakistan, and Egypt from 4 May 2020 to 29 March 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 1009 health care workers who provided direct care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Use of medical masks versus fit-tested N95 respirators for 10 weeks, plus universal masking, which was the policy implemented at each site. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was confirmed COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 52 of 497 (10.46%) participants in the medical mask group versus 47 of 507 (9.27%) in the N95 respirator group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69]). An unplanned subgroup analysis by country found that in the medical mask group versus the N95 respirator group RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 8 of 131 (6.11%) versus 3 of 135 (2.22%) in Canada (HR, 2.83 [CI, 0.75 to 10.72]), 6 of 17 (35.29%) versus 4 of 17 (23.53%) in Israel (HR, 1.54 [CI, 0.43 to 5.49]), 3 of 92 (3.26%) versus 2 of 94 (2.13%) in Pakistan (HR, 1.50 [CI, 0.25 to 8.98]), and 35 of 257 (13.62%) versus 38 of 261 (14.56%) in Egypt (HR, 0.95 [CI, 0.60 to 1.50]). There were 47 (10.8%) adverse events related to the intervention reported in the medical mask group and 59 (13.6%) in the N95 respirator group. LIMITATION: Potential acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 through household and community exposure, heterogeneity between countries, uncertainty in the estimates of effect, differences in self-reported adherence, differences in baseline antibodies, and between-country differences in circulating variants and vaccination. CONCLUSION: Among health care workers who provided routine care to patients with COVID-19, the overall estimates rule out a doubling in hazard of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for medical masks when compared with HRs of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for N95 respirators. The subgroup results varied by country, and the overall estimates may not be applicable to individual countries because of treatment effect heterogeneity. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, World Health Organization, and Juravinski Research Institute.

How Generalizable Are Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia? A Description of the Mortality Gap Between RCTs and Observational Studies.

In Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, mortality rates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are consistently lower than observational studies. Stringent eligibility criteria and omission of early deaths in RCTs contribute to this mortality gap. Clinicians should acknowledge the possibility of a lower treatment effect when applying RCT results to bedside care.

Markers of systemic inflammation are positively associated with influenza vaccine antibody responses with a possible role for ILT2(+)CD57(+) NK-cells.

BACKGROUND: With increasing age, overall health declines while systemic levels of inflammatory mediators tend to increase. Although the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood, there is a wealth of data suggesting that this so-called "inflammaging" contributes to the risk of adverse outcomes in older adults. We sought to determine whether markers of systemic inflammation were associated with antibody responses to the seasonal influenza vaccine. RESULTS: Over four seasons, hemagglutination inhibition antibody titres and ex vivo bulk peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) responses to live influenza viruses assessed via interferon (IFN)-γ/interleukin (IL)-10 production, were measured pre- and 4-weeks post-vaccination in young adults (n = 79) and older adults randomized to standard- or high-dose inactivated vaccine (n = 612). Circulating tumour necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein (CRP) were also measured pre-vaccination. Post-vaccination antibody titres were significantly associated with systemic inflammatory levels; specifically, IL-6 was positively associated with A/H3N2 titres in young adults (Cohen's d = 0.36), and in older high-dose, but not standard-dose recipients, all systemic inflammatory mediators were positively associated with A/H1N1, A/H3N2 and B titres (d = 0.10-0.45). We further show that the frequency of ILT2(+)CD57(+) CD56-Dim natural killer (NK)-cells was positively associated with both plasma IL-6 and post-vaccination A/H3N2 titres in a follow-up cohort of older high-dose recipients (n = 63). Pathway analysis suggested that ILT2(+)CD57(+) Dim NK-cells mediated 40% of the association between IL-6 and A/H3N2 titres, which may be related to underlying participant frailty. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, our data suggest a complex relationship amongst influenza vaccine responses, systemic inflammation and NK-cell phenotype in older adults, which depends heavily on age, vaccine dose and possibly overall health status. While our results suggest that "inflammaging" may increase vaccine immunogenicity in older adults, it is yet to be determined whether this enhancement contributes to improved protection against influenza disease.

Advanced biological age is associated with improved antibody responses in older high-dose influenza vaccine recipients over four consecutive seasons.

BACKGROUND: Biological aging represents a loss of integrity and functionality of physiological systems over time. While associated with an enhanced risk of adverse outcomes such as hospitalization, disability and death following infection, its role in perceived age-related declines in vaccine responses has yet to be fully elucidated. Using data and biosamples from a 4-year clinical trial comparing immune responses of standard- and high-dose influenza vaccination, we quantified biological age (BA) prior to vaccination in adults over 65 years old (n = 292) using a panel of ten serological biomarkers (albumin, alanine aminotransferase, creatinine, ferritin, free thyroxine, cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, triglycerides, tumour necrosis factor, interleukin-6) as implemented in the BioAge R package. Hemagglutination inhibition antibody titres against influenza A/H1N1, A/H3N2 and B were quantified prior to vaccination and 4-, 10- and 20- weeks post-vaccination. RESULTS: Counter to our hypothesis, advanced BA was associated with improved post-vaccination antibody titres against the different viral types and subtypes. However, this was dependent on both vaccine dose and CMV serostatus, as associations were only apparent for high-dose recipients (d = 0.16-0.26), and were largely diminished for CMV positive high-dose recipients. CONCLUSIONS: These findings emphasize two important points: first, the loss of physiological integrity related to biological aging may not be a ubiquitous driver of immune decline in older adults; and second, latent factors such as CMV infection (prevalent in up to 90% of older adults worldwide) may contribute to the heterogeneity in vaccine responses of older adults more than previously thought.

Joint testing of IgM and IgG has high value for ruling in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

SOURCE CITATION: Guo CC, Mi JQ, Nie H. Seropositivity rate and diagnostic accuracy of serological tests in 2019-nCoV cases: a pooled analysis of individual studies. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020;24:10208-18. 33090430.

In-Hospital Macro-, Meso-, and Micro-Drivers and Interventions for Antibiotic Use and Resistance: A Rapid Evidence Synthesis of Data from Canada and Other OECD Countries.

Hospitals continue to face challenges in reducing incorrect antibiotic use due to social and cultural factors at the level of the health system, the care facility, the provider, and the patient. The objective of this paper is to highlight the social and cultural drivers of antimicrobial use and resistance and targeted interventions for secondary and tertiary care settings in Canada and other OECD countries. This paper is an extension of the synthesis conducted for the Public Health Agency of Canada's 2019 Spotlight Report: Preserving Antibiotics Now and Into the Future. We conducted a systematic review with a few modifications to meet rapid timelines. We conducted a search in Ovid MEDLINE and McMaster University's evidence databases for systematic reviews and then for individual Canadian studies. To cast a wider net, we searched OECD organization websites and screened reference lists from systematic reviews. We synthesized the evidence narratively and categorized the evidence into macro-, meso-, and microlevel. A total of 70 studies were (a) from OCED countries and summarized evidence of potential sociocultural antimicrobial resistance and use barriers or facilitators and/or interventions addressing these challenges; (b) systematic reviews with 50% of included studies that are situated in secondary and tertiary settings; and (c) published in Canada's two official languages, English and French. We found that hospital structures and policies may influence antibiotic utilization and variations in antimicrobial management. Microlevel factors may sway inappropriate prescribing among clinicians. The amount and type of antibiotics used may affect resistance rates. Interventions were mainly comprised of antibiotic stewardship and training that modify clinician behavior and that educate patients and carers. This evidence synthesis illustrates the various drivers of, and interventions for, antimicrobial use and resistance at the macro-, meso-, and microlevel in secondary and tertiary settings. We demonstrate that upstream drivers may lead to downstream events that influence antimicrobial resistance.

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Antibiotic Therapies: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic noninferiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are used for approval of new antibiotics and making changes to antibiotic prescribing in clinical practice. We conducted a systematic review to assess the methodological and reporting quality of antibiotic noninferiority RCTs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Food and Drug Administration drug database from inception until November 22, 2019, for noninferiority RCTs comparing different systemic antibiotic therapies. Comparisons between antibiotic types, doses, administration routes, or durations were included. Methodological and reporting quality indicators were based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. RESULTS: The systematic review included 227 studies. Of these, 135 (59.5%) studies were supported by pharmaceutical industry. Only 83 (36.6%) studies provided a justification for the noninferiority margin. Reporting of both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were done in 165 (72.7%) studies. The conclusion was misleading in 34 (15.0%) studies. The studies funded by pharmaceutical industry were less likely to be stopped early because of logistical reasons (3.0% vs 19.1%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04-.37) and to show inconclusive results (11.1% vs 42.9%; OR = 0.17; 95% CI, .08-.33). The quality of studies decreased over time with respect to blinding, early stopping, reporting of ITT with PP analysis, and having misleading conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: There is room for improvement in the methodology and reporting of antibiotic noninferiority trials. Quality can be improved across the entire spectrum from investigators, funding agencies, as well as during the peer-review process.There is room for improvement in the methodology and reporting of antibiotic noninferiority trials including justification of noninferiority margin, reporting of intention-to-treat analysis with per-protocol analysis, and having conclusions that are concordant with study results.Clinical Trials Registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42020165040.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing.

BACKGROUND: Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution and public health level decision-making. The numbers of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests are rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance. OBJECTIVE: The IDSA's goal was to develop an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings and highlight important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing space. METHODS: IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 17 diagnostic recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Universal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is recommended for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation timing. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing.

BACKGROUND: Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens are now commercially available. The most widely used tests are rapid lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) assays have also been developed. The overall accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests, however, is not well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is the third in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by IDSA. OBJECTIVE: IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and non-medical settings. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on five diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Data on the clinical performance of U.S. Food and Drug Administration SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization is mostly limited to single, one-time testing versus standard nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) as the reference standard. Rapid Ag tests have high specificity and low to modest sensitivity compared to reference NAAT methods. Antigen test sensitivity is heavily dependent on viral load, with differences observed between symptomatic compared to asymptomatic individuals and the time of testing post onset of symptoms. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the diagnostic methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing can help identify some individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the ICU: First Update.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.

Intention-to-treat analysis may be more conservative than per protocol analysis in antibiotic non-inferiority trials: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In non-inferiority trials, there is a concern that intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, by including participants who did not receive the planned interventions, may bias towards making the treatment and control arms look similar and lead to mistaken claims of non-inferiority. In contrast, per protocol (PP) analysis is viewed as less likely to make this mistake and therefore preferable in non-inferiority trials. In a systematic review of antibiotic non-inferiority trials, we compared ITT and PP analyses to determine which analysis was more conservative. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of a systematic review, we included non-inferiority trials that compared different antibiotic regimens, used absolute risk reduction (ARR) as the main outcome and reported both ITT and PP analyses. All estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) were oriented so that a negative ARR favored the control arm, and a positive ARR favored the treatment arm. We compared ITT to PP analyses results. The more conservative analysis between ITT and PP analyses was defined as the one having a more negative lower CI limit. RESULTS: The analysis included 164 comparisons from 154 studies. In terms of the ARR, ITT analysis yielded the more conservative point estimate and lower CI limit in 83 (50.6%) and 92 (56.1%) comparisons respectively. The lower CI limits in ITT analysis favored the control arm more than in PP analysis (median of - 7.5% vs. -6.9%, p = 0.0402). CIs were slightly wider in ITT analyses than in PP analyses (median of 13.3% vs. 12.4%, p < 0.0001). The median success rate was 89% (interquartile range IQR 82 to 93%) in the PP population and 44% (IQR 23 to 60%) in the patients who were included in the ITT population but excluded from the PP population (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to common belief, ITT analysis was more conservative than PP analysis in the majority of antibiotic non-inferiority trials. The lower treatment success rate in the ITT analysis led to a larger variance and wider CI, resulting in a more conservative lower CI limit. ITT analysis should be mandatory and considered as either the primary or co-primary analysis for non-inferiority trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42020165040 .

The burden of influenza in older adults: meeting the challenge.

Influenza is an acute respiratory infection for which vaccination is our best prevention strategy. Small seasonal changes in circulating influenza viruses (antigenic drift) result in the need for annual influenza vaccination, in which the vaccine formulation is updated to better match the predominant circulating influenza viruses that have undergone important antigenic changes. Although the burden of influenza infection and its complications is the highest in older adults, vaccine effectiveness is the lowest in this vulnerable population. This is largely due to waning of the immune response with age known as "immune senescence", and presents an important, unmet challenge. Possible strategies to tackle this include adjuvant and high-dose vaccines, and herd immunity induced by greater vaccine uptake.

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).

Frailty Hinders Recovery From Influenza and Acute Respiratory Illness in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: We examined frailty as a predictor of recovery in older adults hospitalized with influenza and acute respiratory illness. METHODS: A total of 5011 patients aged ≥65 years were admitted to Canadian Serious Outcomes Surveillance Network hospitals during the 2011/2012, 2012/2013, and 2013/2014 influenza seasons. Frailty was measured using a previously validated frailty index (FI). Poor recovery was defined as death by 30 days postdischarge or an increase of more than 0.06 (≥2 persistent new health deficits) on the FI. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for age, sex, season, influenza diagnosis, and influenza vaccination status. RESULTS: Mean age was 79.4 (standard deviation = 8.4) years; 53.1% were women. At baseline, 15.0% (n = 750) were nonfrail, 39.3% (n = 1971) were prefrail, 39.8% (n = 1995) were frail, and 5.9% (n = 295) were most frail. Poor recovery was experienced by 21.4%, 52.0% of whom had died. Frailty was associated with lower odds of recovery in all 3 seasons: 2011/2012 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.84), 2012/2013 (OR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.79), and 2013/2014 (OR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.82); results varied by season, influenza status, vaccination status, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing frailty is associated with lower odds of recovery, and persistent worsening frailty is an important adverse outcome of acute illness.