The Path of More Resistance: a Comparison of National Healthcare Safety Network and Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute Criteria in Developing Cumulative Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Reports and Institutional Antibiograms.

In the absence of antimicrobial susceptibility data, the institutional antibiogram is a valuable tool to guide clinicians in the empirical treatment of infections. However, there is a misunderstanding about how best to prepare cumulative antimicrobial susceptibility testing reports (CASTRs) to guide empirical therapy (e.g., routine antibiogram) versus monitoring antimicrobial resistance, with the former following guidance from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and the latter from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). These criteria vary markedly in their exclusion or inclusion of isolates cultured repeatedly from the same patient. We compared rates of nonsusceptibility (NS) using annual data from a large teaching health care system subset to isolates eligible by either NHSN criteria or CLSI criteria. For a panel of the three most prevalent Gram-negative pathogens in combination with clinically relevant antimicrobial agents (or priority pathogen-agent combinations [PPACs]), we found that the inclusion of duplicate isolates by NHSN criteria yielded higher NS rates than when CLSI criteria (for which duplicate isolates are not included) were applied. Patients with duplicate isolates may not be representative of antimicrobial resistance within a population. For this reason, users of CASTR data should carefully consider that the criteria used to generate these reports can impact resulting NS rates and, therefore, maintain the distinction between CASTRs created for different purposes.

Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Viral-Load Curves in Paired Saliva Samples and Nasal Swabs Inform Appropriate Respiratory Sampling Site and Analytical Test Sensitivity Required for Earliest Viral Detection.

Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is critical to reduce asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission, curb the spread of variants, and maximize treatment efficacy. Low-analytical-sensitivity nasal-swab testing is commonly used for surveillance and symptomatic testing, but the ability of these tests to detect the earliest stages of infection has not been established. In this study, conducted between September 2020 and June 2021 in the greater Los Angeles County, California, area, initially SARS-CoV-2-negative household contacts of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 prospectively self-collected paired anterior-nares nasal-swab and saliva samples twice daily for viral-load quantification by high-sensitivity reverse-transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and digital-RT-PCR assays. We captured viral-load profiles from the incidence of infection for seven individuals and compared diagnostic sensitivities between respiratory sites. Among unvaccinated persons, testing saliva with a high-analytical-sensitivity assay detected infection up to 4.5 days before viral loads in nasal swabs reached concentrations detectable by low-analytical-sensitivity nasal-swab tests. For most participants, nasal swabs reached higher peak viral loads than saliva but were undetectable or at lower loads during the first few days of infection. High-analytical-sensitivity saliva testing was most reliable for earliest detection. Our study illustrates the value of acquiring early (within hours after a negative high-sensitivity test) viral-load profiles to guide the appropriate analytical sensitivity and respiratory site for detecting earliest infections. Such data are challenging to acquire but critical to designing optimal testing strategies with emerging variants in the current pandemic and to respond to future viral pandemics.

Laboratory Evaluation Links Some False-Positive COVID-19 Antigen Test Results Observed in a Field Study to a Specific Lot of Test Strips.

During a household-transmission field study using COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT), a common test strip lot was identified among 3 participants with false-positive results. In blinded laboratory evaluation, this lot exhibited a significantly higher false-positive rate than other lots. Because a positive Ag-RDT result often prompts action, reducing lot-specific false positives can maintain confidence and actionability of true-positive Ag-RDT results.

Index cases first identified by nasal-swab rapid COVID-19 tests had more transmission to household contacts than cases identified by other test types.

At-home rapid COVID-19 tests in the U.S. utilize nasal-swab specimens and require high viral loads to reliably give positive results. Longitudinal studies from the onset of infection have found infectious virus can present in oral specimens days before nasal. Detection and initiation of infection-control practices may therefore be delayed when nasal-swab rapid tests are used, resulting in greater transmission to contacts. We assessed whether index cases first identified by rapid nasal-swab COVID-19 tests had more transmission to household contacts than index cases who used other test types (tests with higher analytical sensitivity and/or non-nasal specimen types). In this observational cohort study, 370 individuals from 85 households with a recent COVID-19 case were screened at least daily by RT-qPCR on one or more self-collected upper-respiratory specimen types. A two-level random intercept model was used to assess the association between the infection outcome of household contacts and each covariable (household size, race/ethnicity, age, vaccination status, viral variant, infection-control practices, and whether a rapid nasal-swab test was used to initially identify the household index case). Transmission was quantified by adjusted secondary attack rates (aSAR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR). An aSAR of 53.6% (95% CI 38.8-68.3%) was observed among households where the index case first tested positive by a rapid nasal-swab COVID-19 test, which was significantly higher than the aSAR for households where the index case utilized another test type (27.2% 95% CI 19.5-35.0%, P = 0.003 pairwise comparisons of predictive margins). We observed an aOR of 4.90 (95% CI 1.65-14.56) for transmission to household contacts when a nasal-swab rapid test was used to identify the index case, compared to other test types. Use of nasal-swab rapid COVID-19 tests for initial detection of infection and initiation of infection control may be less effective at limiting transmission to household contacts than other test types.

Daily SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Antigen Tests Miss Infected and Presumably Infectious People Due to Viral Load Differences among Specimen Types.

In a recent household transmission study of SARS-CoV-2, we found extreme differences in SARS-CoV-2 viral loads among paired saliva, anterior nares swab (ANS), and oropharyngeal swab specimens collected from the same time point. We hypothesized these differences may hinder low-analytical-sensitivity assays (including antigen rapid diagnostic tests [Ag-RDTs]) by using a single specimen type (e.g., ANS) from reliably detecting infected and infectious individuals. We evaluated daily at-home ANS Ag-RDTs (Quidel QuickVue) in a cross-sectional analysis of 228 individuals and a longitudinal analysis (throughout infection) of 17 individuals enrolled early in the course of infection. Ag-RDT results were compared to reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) results and high, presumably infectious viral loads (in each, or any, specimen type). The ANS Ag-RDT correctly detected only 44% of time points from infected individuals on cross-sectional analysis, and this population had an inferred limit of detection of 7.6 × 106 copies/mL. From the longitudinal cohort, daily Ag-RDT clinical sensitivity was very low (<3%) during the early, preinfectious period of the infection. Further, the Ag-RDT detected ≤63% of presumably infectious time points. The poor observed clinical sensitivity of the Ag-RDT was similar to what was predicted based on quantitative ANS viral loads and the inferred limit of detection of the ANS Ag-RDT being evaluated, indicating high-quality self-sampling. Nasal Ag-RDTs, even when used daily, can miss individuals infected with the Omicron variant and even those presumably infectious. Evaluations of Ag-RDTs for detection of infected or infectious individuals should be compared with a composite (multispecimen) infection status to correctly assess performance. IMPORTANCE We reveal three findings from a longitudinal study of daily nasal antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) evaluated against SARS-CoV-2 viral load quantification in three specimen types (saliva, nasal swab, and throat swab) in participants enrolled at the incidence of infection. First, the evaluated Ag-RDT showed low (44%) clinical sensitivity for detecting infected persons at all infection stages. Second, the Ag-RDT poorly detected (≤63%) time points that participants had high and presumably infectious viral loads in at least one specimen type. This poor clinical sensitivity to detect infectious individuals is inconsistent with the commonly held view that daily Ag-RDTs have near-perfect detection of infectious individuals. Third, use of a combination nasal-throat specimen type was inferred by viral loads to significantly improve Ag-RDT performance to detect infectious individuals.

Extreme differences in SARS-CoV-2 viral loads among respiratory specimen types during presumed pre-infectious and infectious periods.

SARS-CoV-2 viral-load measurements from a single-specimen type are used to establish diagnostic strategies, interpret clinical-trial results for vaccines and therapeutics, model viral transmission, and understand virus-host interactions. However, measurements from a single-specimen type are implicitly assumed to be representative of other specimen types. We quantified viral-load timecourses from individuals who began daily self-sampling of saliva, anterior-nares (nasal), and oropharyngeal (throat) swabs before or at the incidence of infection with the Omicron variant. Viral loads in different specimen types from the same person at the same timepoint exhibited extreme differences, up to 109 copies/mL. These differences were not due to variation in sample self-collection, which was consistent. For most individuals, longitudinal viral-load timecourses in different specimen types did not correlate. Throat-swab and saliva viral loads began to rise as many as 7 days earlier than nasal-swab viral loads in most individuals, leading to very low clinical sensitivity of nasal swabs during the first days of infection. Individuals frequently exhibited presumably infectious viral loads in one specimen type while viral loads were low or undetectable in other specimen types. Therefore, defining an individual as infectious based on assessment of a single-specimen type underestimates the infectious period, and overestimates the ability of that specimen type to detect infectious individuals. For diagnostic COVID-19 testing, these three single-specimen types have low clinical sensitivity, whereas a combined throat-nasal swab, and assays with high analytical sensitivity, was inferred to have significantly better clinical sensitivity to detect presumed pre-infectious and infectious individuals.

Morning SARS-CoV-2 Testing Yields Better Detection of Infection Due to Higher Viral Loads in Saliva and Nasal Swabs upon Waking.

Optimizing specimen collection methods to achieve the most reliable SARS-CoV-2 detection for a given diagnostic sensitivity would improve testing and minimize COVID-19 outbreaks. From September 2020 to April 2021, we performed a household-transmission study in which participants self-collected specimens every morning and evening throughout acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Seventy mildly symptomatic participants collected saliva, and of those, 29 also collected nasal swab specimens. Viral load was quantified in 1,194 saliva and 661 nasal swab specimens using a high-analytical-sensitivity reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) assay. Viral loads in both saliva and nasal swab specimens were significantly higher in morning-collected specimens than in evening-collected specimens after symptom onset. This aspect of the biology of SARS-CoV-2 infection has implications for diagnostic testing. We infer that morning collection would have resulted in significantly improved detection and that this advantage would be most pronounced for tests with low to moderate analytical sensitivity. Collecting specimens for COVID-19 testing in the morning offers a simple and low-cost improvement to clinical diagnostic sensitivity of low- to moderate-analytical-sensitivity tests. IMPORTANCE Our findings suggest that collecting saliva and nasal swab specimens in the morning immediately after waking yields higher SARS-CoV-2 viral loads than collection later in the day. The higher viral loads from morning specimen collection are predicted to significantly improve detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic individuals, particularly when using moderate- to low-analytical-sensitivity COVID-19 diagnostic tests, such as rapid antigen tests.