Evaluation of Performance Characteristics of the Aptima CMV Quant Assay for the Detection and Quantitation of CMV DNA in Plasma Samples.

Quantification of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA has become the standard of care in the diagnosis and management of CMV infection in transplant recipients. The objective of the study was to evaluate performance characteristics of the Aptima CMV Quant assay in comparison to Abbott RealTime CMV assay, Qiagen Artus CMV RGQ MDx assay, and Roche cobas CMV test using plasma samples. The performance of the Aptima assay was evaluated by comparing the Exact Diagnostics CMV verification panel and positive controls, Hologic CMV internal reproducibility panel, and SeraCare CMV DNA qualification panel to the RealTime assay. Clinical agreement was evaluated using 389 clinical plasma samples comparing the Aptima assay to three comparator assays. The Aptima assay demonstrated good linearity and strong linear correlation between the assays (R2 = 0.99); the intra- and interassay reproducibility was excellent overall (SD = 0.09 to 0.14 and SD = 0.04 to 0.14, respectively); 95% limit of detection (LOD) is 32 IU/mL and LOQ is 45 IU/mL. The SeraCare qualification panel yielded a strong linear correlation (R2 = 0.99). A total of 262 positive samples were analyzed to compare Aptima and Realtime assays using Deming regression and Bland-Altman analysis and demonstrated a mean bias of 0.092 Log10 IU/mL. Artus (85) and cobas (159) positive samples were compared to the Aptima assay using Deming regression and Bland-Altman analyses and showed mean bias of 0.184 and -0.208 Log10 IU/mL, respectively. The findings demonstrate that the Aptima assay is sensitive and accurate in quantifying CMV in plasma specimens on the fully automated Panther system and that the results were comparable to the other FDA-approved CMV assays.

AGA Rapid Review and Guideline for SARS-CoV2 Testing and Endoscopy Post-Vaccination: 2021 Update.

This guideline provides updated recommendations on the role of preprocedure testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) in individuals undergoing endoscopy in the post-vaccination period and replaces the prior guideline from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) (released July 29, 2020). Since the start of the pandemic, our increased understanding of transmission has facilitated the implementation of practices to promote patient and health care worker (HCW) safety. Simultaneously, there has been increasing recognition of the potential harm associated with delays in patient care, as well as inefficiency of endoscopy units. With widespread vaccination of HCWs and the general population, a re-evaluation of AGA's prior recommendations was warranted. In order to update the role of preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2, the AGA guideline panel reviewed the evidence on prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV2 infections in individuals undergoing endoscopy; patient and HCW risk of infections that may be acquired immediately before, during, or after endoscopy; effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in reducing risk of infections and transmission; patient and HCW anxiety; patient delays in care and potential impact on cancer burden; and endoscopy volumes. The panel considered the certainty of the evidence, weighed the benefits and harms of routine preprocedure testing, and considered burden, equity, and cost using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Based on very low certainty evidence, the panel made a conditional recommendation against routine preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2 in patients scheduled to undergo endoscopy. The panel placed a high value on minimizing additional delays in patient care, acknowledging the reduced endoscopy volumes, downstream impact on delayed cancer diagnoses, and burden of testing on patients.

Diagnostic Tests Can Stem the Threat of Antimicrobial Resistance: Infectious Disease Professionals Can Help.

Uptake of existing diagnostics to identify infections more accurately could minimize unnecessary antibiotic use and decrease the growing threat of antibiotic resistance. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (PACCARB) agree that, to improve uptake of existing diagnostics, healthcare providers, health systems, and payors all need better clinical and economic outcomes data to support use of diagnostic tests over empiric use of antibiotics, providers need better tools and education about diagnostic tests, and diagnostics developers need federal funding in the absence of a viable diagnostics market. Recommendations from PACCARB and the IDSA are amplified. Incentives for-and challenges to-diagnostics research, development, and uptake are summarized. Advocacy opportunities are given for infectious disease professionals to join the fight against antimicrobial resistance.

Leveraging Existing and Soon-to-Be-Available Novel Diagnostics for Optimizing Outpatient Antibiotic Stewardship in Patients With Respiratory Tract Infections.

Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) drive many outpatient encounters and, despite being predominantly viral, are associated with high rates of antibiotic prescriptions. With rising antibacterial resistance, optimization of prescribing of antibiotics in outpatients with RTIs is a critical need. Fortunately, this challenge arises at a time of increasing availability of novel RTI diagnostics to help discern which patients have bacterial infections warranting treatment. Effective implementation of antibiotic stewardship is needed, but optimal approaches for ambulatory settings are unknown. Future research needs are reviewed in this summary of a research summit convened by the Infectious Diseases Society of America in the fall of 2019.

Aspergillus Polymerase Chain Reaction-An Update on Technical Recommendations, Clinical Applications, and Justification for Inclusion in the Second Revision of the EORTC/MSGERC Definitions of Invasive Fungal Disease.

Aspergillus polymerase chain reaction testing of blood and respiratory samples has recently been included in the second revision of the EORTC/MSGERC definitions for classifying invasive fungal disease. This is a result of considerable efforts to standardize methodology, the availability of commercial assays and external quality control programs, and additional clinical validation. This supporting article provides both clinical and technical justifications for its inclusion while also summarizing recent advances and likely future developments in the molecular diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis.

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.

Validation and performance comparison of three SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays.

Serology testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is increasingly being used during the current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), although its clinical and epidemiologic utilities are still debatable. Characterizing these assays provides scientific basis to best use them. The current study assessed one chemiluminescent assay (Abbott COVID-2 IgG) and two lateral flow assays (STANDARD Q [SQ] IgM/IgG Duo and Wondfo total antibody test) using 113 blood samples from 71 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized patients, 119 samples with potential cross-reactions, and 1068 negative controls including 942 pre-pandemic samples. SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies became detectable 3-4 days post-symptom onset using SQ IgM test and IgG antibodies were first detected 5-6 days post-onset using SQ IgG. Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total were able to detect antibodies 7 to 8 days post-onset. After 14 days post-symptom onset, the SQ IgG, Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total tests were able to detect antibodies from 100% of the PCR-confirmed patients in this series; 87.5% sensitivity for SQ IgM. Overall agreement was 88.5% between SQ IgM/IgG and Wondfo Total and 94.6% between SQ IgG and Abbott IgG. No cross-reaction due to recent sera with three of the endemic coronaviruses was observed. Viral hepatitis and autoimmune samples were the main source of limited cross-reactions. The specificities were 100% for SQ IgG and Wondfo Total, 99.62% for Abbott IgG, and 98.87% for SQ IgM. These findings demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity of appropriately validated SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays with implications for clinical use and epidemiological seroprevalence studies.

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

BACKGROUND: The availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well-defined. 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 best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. OBJECTIVE: IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development and the selection of convalescent plasma donors. 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 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 agreed on eight diagnostic recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Information on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests are rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified three potential indications for serologic testing including: 1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and at least two weeks have passed since symptom onset; 2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children; and 3) for conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate.

Molecular Testing for Acute Respiratory Tract Infections: Clinical and Diagnostic Recommendations From the IDSA's Diagnostics Committee.

The clinical signs and symptoms of acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are not pathogen specific. Highly sensitive and specific nucleic acid amplification tests have become the diagnostic reference standard for viruses, and translation of bacterial assays from basic research to routine clinical practice represents an exciting advance in respiratory medicine. Most recently, molecular diagnostics have played an essential role in the global health response to the novel coronavirus pandemic. How best to use newer molecular tests for RTI in combination with clinical judgment and traditional methods can be bewildering given the plethora of available assays and rapidly evolving technologies. Here, we summarize the current state of the art with respect to the diagnosis of viral and bacterial RTIs, provide a practical framework for diagnostic decision making using selected patient-centered vignettes, and make recommendations for future studies to advance the field.

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

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 assists 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 15 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 low 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 administration of immunosuppressive therapy. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

Revision and Update of the Consensus Definitions of Invasive Fungal Disease From the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) remain important causes of morbidity and mortality. The consensus definitions of the Infectious Diseases Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group have been of immense value to researchers who conduct clinical trials of antifungals, assess diagnostic tests, and undertake epidemiologic studies. However, their utility has not extended beyond patients with cancer or recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants. With newer diagnostic techniques available, it was clear that an update of these definitions was essential. METHODS: To achieve this, 10 working groups looked closely at imaging, laboratory diagnosis, and special populations at risk of IFD. A final version of the manuscript was agreed upon after the groups' findings were presented at a scientific symposium and after a 3-month period for public comment. There were several rounds of discussion before a final version of the manuscript was approved. RESULTS: There is no change in the classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" IFD, although the definition of "probable" has been expanded and the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven IFD can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised. The probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only, except for endemic mycoses. CONCLUSIONS: These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.

Detecting Infections Rapidly and Easily for Candidemia Trial, Part 2 (DIRECT2): A Prospective, Multicenter Study of the T2Candida Panel.

Background: Blood cultures are approximately 50% sensitive for diagnosing invasive candidiasis. The T2Candida nanodiagnostic panel uses T2 magnetic resonance and a dedicated instrument to detect Candida directly within whole blood samples. Methods: Patients with Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Candida parapsilosis, Candida tropicalis, or Candida krusei candidemia were identified at 14 centers using diagnostic blood cultures (dBCs). Follow-up blood samples were collected concurrently for testing by T2Candida and companion cultures (cBCs). T2Candida results are reported qualitatively for C. albicans/C. tropicalis, C. glabrata/C. krusei, and C. parapsilosis. T2Candida and cBCs were positive if they detected a species present in the dBC. Results: Median time between collection of dBC and T2Candida/cBC samples in 152 patients was 55.5 hours (range, 16.4-148.4). T2Candida and cBCs were positive in 45% (69/152) and 24% (36/152) of patients, respectively (P < .0001). T2Candida clinical sensitivity was 89%, as positive results were obtained in 32/36 patients with positive cBCs. Combined test results were both positive (T2+/cBC+), 21% (32/152); T2+/cBC-, 24% (37/152); T2-/cBC+, 3% (4/152); and T2-/cBC-, 52% (79/152). Prior antifungal therapy, neutropenia, and C. albicans candidemia were independently associated with T2Candida positivity and T2+/cBC- results (P values < .05). Conclusions: T2Candida was sensitive for diagnosing candidemia at the time of positive blood cultures. In patients receiving antifungal therapy, T2Candida identified bloodstream infections that were missed by cBCs. T2Candida may improve care by shortening times to Candida detection and species identification compared to blood cultures, retaining sensitivity during antifungal therapy and rendering active candidemia unlikely if results are negative. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01525095.

Does Size Matter? Comparison of Extraction Yields for Different-Sized DNA Fragments by Seven Different Routine and Four New Circulating Cell-Free Extraction Methods.

An element essential for PCR detection of microbial agents in many sample types is the extraction step, designed to purify nucleic acids. Despite the importance of this step, yields have not been extensively compared across methods to determine whether the method used contributes to quantitative differences and the lack of commutability seen with existing clinical methods. This may in part explain why plasma and blood viral load assays have proven difficult to standardize. Also, studies have identified small DNA fragments of <200 bp in plasma (cell-free DNA [cfDNA]), which may include significant quantities of viral DNA. Our study evaluated extraction yields for 11 commercially available extraction methods, including 4 new methods designed to isolate cfDNA. Solutions of DNA fragments with sizes ranging from 50 to 1,500 bp were extracted, and then the eluates were tested by droplet digital PCR to determine the DNA fragment yield for each method. The results demonstrated a wide range of extraction yields across the variety of methods/instruments used, with the 50- and 100-bp fragment sizes showing especially inconsistent quantitative results and poor yields of less than 20%. Slightly higher, more consistent yields were seen with 2 of the 4 circulating cell-free extraction kits. These results demonstrate a significant need for further evaluation of nucleic acid yields across the variety of extraction platforms and highlight the poor extraction yields of small DNA fragments by existing methods. Further work is necessary to determine the impact of this inconsistency across instruments and the relevance of the low yields for smaller DNA fragments in clinical virology testing.

Evaluation of Performance Characteristics of Panther Fusion Assays for Detection of Respiratory Viruses from Nasopharyngeal and Lower Respiratory Tract Specimens.

Accurate and rapid diagnosis is needed for timely intervention and clinical management of acute respiratory infections. This study evaluated performance characteristics of the Panther Fusion assay for the detection of influenza A virus (Flu A), influenza B virus (Flu B), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenza viruses 1 to 3 (Para 1 to 3), human metapneumovirus (hMPV), rhinovirus (RV), and adenovirus (Adeno) targets in comparison to those of the eSensor and Lyra assays using 395 nasopharyngeal (NP) and 104 lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens. Based on the consensus positive result established (positive result in 2 of the 3 assays), the NP specimens for the Fusion and eSensor assays had 100% positive percent agreement (PPA) for all the analytes and the Lyra assays had 100% PPA for Flu A and Adeno analytes. A 100% negative percent agreement (NPA) was observed for all the Lyra analytes, whereas those for the Fusion targets ranged from 98.4 to 100% and those for the eSensor ranged from 99.4 to 100% for all the analytes except RV. For the LRT specimens, Fusion had 100% PPA and 100% NPA for all the targets except hMPV. There was a 100% PPA for eSensor analytes; the NPA ranged from 98 to 100%, except for RV. For the Lyra assays, the PPA ranged between 50 and 100%, while the NPA was 100% for all the targets except Adeno. The Fusion assay performed similarly to the eSensor assay for majority of the targets tested and provides laboratories with a fully automated random-access system to test for a broad array of viral respiratory pathogens.

Determining the analytical specificity of PCR-based assays for the diagnosis of IA: What is Aspergillus?

A wide array of PCR tests has been developed to aid the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis (IA), providing technical diversity but limiting standardisation and acceptance. Methodological recommendations for testing blood samples using PCR exist, based on achieving optimal assay sensitivity to help exclude IA. Conversely, when testing more invasive samples (BAL, biopsy, CSF) emphasis is placed on confirming disease, so analytical specificity is paramount. This multicenter study examined the analytical specificity of PCR methods for detecting IA by blind testing a panel of DNA extracted from a various fungal species to explore the range of Aspergillus species that could be detected, but also potential cross reactivity with other fungal species. Positivity rates were calculated and regression analysis was performed to determine any associations between technical specifications and performance. The accuracy of Aspergillus genus specific assays was 71.8%, significantly greater (P < .0001) than assays specific for individual Aspergillus species (47.2%). For genus specific assays the most often missed species were A. lentulus (25.0%), A. versicolor (24.1%), A. terreus (16.1%), A. flavus (15.2%), A. niger (13.4%), and A. fumigatus (6.2%). There was a significant positive association between accuracy and using an Aspergillus genus PCR assay targeting the rRNA genes (P = .0011). Conversely, there was a significant association between rRNA PCR targets and false positivity (P = .0032). To conclude current Aspergillus PCR assays are better suited for detecting A. fumigatus, with inferior detection of most other Aspergillus species. The use of an Aspergillus genus specific PCR assay targeting the rRNA genes is preferential.

Are We There Yet? Impact of the First International Standard for Cytomegalovirus DNA on the Harmonization of Results Reported on Plasma Samples.

BACKGROUND: Interassay harmonization of cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA measurement is important for infection management. Uncertainty exists regarding the result harmonization achievable in patient plasma samples using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays with calibrators now traceable to the First World Health Organization International Standard (IS) for CMV DNA. METHOD: Serial dilutions of the IS and a blinded panel of 40 genotyped CMV DNA-positive pooled plasma samples and 10 negative plasma samples were tested by 6 laboratories using 10 qPCR assays calibrated to the IS. Each clinical sample was constructed using plasma from a single unique transplant recipient. RESULTS: The variance for individual CMV DNA-positive samples was greater for clinical samples (median, 1.50 [range, 1.22-2.82] log10 IU/mL) than for IS dilutions (median, 0.94 [range, 0.69-1.35] log10 IU/mL) (P < .001); 58.9% of all clinical sample results and 93.6% of IS dilution results fell within ±0.5 log10 IU/mL of the mean viral load of each sample. Result variability was not impacted by either genotype or quantitative levels of CMV DNA. Testing procedure differences can significantly influence results, even when analyte-specific reagents are identical. For clinical samples, all assays demonstrated result bias (P < .008). Assays with amplicon sizes ≤86 bp had significantly higher results compared to assays with larger amplicon sizes (≥105 bp) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The variability in CMV DNA results reported on individual samples has been reduced by the IS, but ongoing clinically relevant variability persists, preventing meaningful interassay result comparison.

Maintaining Life-saving Testing for Patients With Infectious Diseases: Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Society for Microbiology, and Pan American Society for Clinical Virology Recommendations on the Regulation of Laboratory-developed Tests.

In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed to regulate laboratory-developed tests (LDTs)-diagnostics designed, manufactured, and used within a single laboratory. The Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Society for Microbiology, and the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology recognize that the FDA is committed to protecting patients. However, our societies are concerned that the proposed regulations will limit access to testing and negatively impact infectious diseases (ID) LDTs. In this joint commentary, our societies discuss why LDTs are critical for ID patient care, hospital infection control, and public health responses. We also highlight how the FDA's proposed regulation of LDTs could impair patient access to life-saving tests and stifle innovation in ID diagnostics. Finally, our societies make specific recommendations for the FDA's consideration to reduce the burden of the proposed new rules on clinical laboratories and protect patients' access to state-of-the art, quality LDTs.

Rapid Molecular Diagnostics, Antibiotic Treatment Decisions, and Developing Approaches to Inform Empiric Therapy: PRIMERS I and II.

BACKGROUND: Rapid molecular diagnostic (RMD) platforms may lead to better antibiotic use. Our objective was to develop analytical strategies to enhance the interpretation of RMDs for clinicians. METHODS: We compared the performance characteristics of 4 RMD platforms for detecting resistance against ß-lactams in 72 highly resistant isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae (PRIMERS I). Subsequently, 2 platforms were used in a blinded study in which a heterogeneous collection of 196 isolates of E. coli and K. pneumoniae (PRIMERS II) were examined. We evaluated the genotypic results as predictors of resistance or susceptibility against ß-lactam antibiotics. We designed analytical strategies and graphical representations of platform performance, including discrimination summary plots and susceptibility and resistance predictive values, that are readily interpretable by practitioners to inform decision-making. RESULTS: In PRIMERS I, the 4 RMD platforms detected ß-lactamase (bla) genes and identified susceptibility or resistance in >95% of cases. In PRIMERS II, the 2 platforms identified susceptibility against extended-spectrum cephalosporins and carbapenems in >90% of cases; however, against piperacillin/tazobactam, susceptibility was identified in <80% of cases. Applying the analytical strategies to a population with 15% prevalence of ceftazidime-resistance and 5% imipenem-resistance, RMD platforms predicted susceptibility in >95% of cases, while prediction of resistance was 69%-73% for ceftazidime and 41%-50% for imipenem. CONCLUSIONS: RMD platforms can help inform empiric ß-lactam therapy in cases where bla genes are not detected and the prevalence of resistance is known. Our analysis is a first step in bridging the gap between RMDs and empiric treatment decisions.