FDA's proposed rule for the regulation of laboratory-developed tests.

In October 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a proposed rule that ends enforcement discretion for laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). The FDA's proposal outlines a five-stage implementation to begin regulating LDTs as they do for commercial in vitro diagnostics (IVDs), including modified FDA-approved/cleared tests. We outline here concerns from the clinical and public health microbiology laboratory perspective. It is our opinion that LDTs performed by individual Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified diagnostic laboratories should not be regulated in the same way as commercial IVDs. This rule, if finalized, will negatively impact the diagnostic services currently offered by clinical and public health laboratories and, therefore, patients and the providers who care for them. Ending enforcement discretion will likely stifle diagnostic innovation and decrease access to diagnostic testing and health equity. Furthermore, the lack of infrastructure, including personnel and funding, at the FDA and diagnostic laboratories to support the required submissions for review is an obstacle. Like the FDA, diagnostic laboratories prioritize patient safety, accurate clinical diagnostics, and health equity. Since the scope of the LDT landscape is currently unknown, we are supportive of a registration process, along with non-burdensome adverse event reporting, to first understand the scope of clinical use of LDTs and any associated safety concerns. Any regulatory rule should be based on data that have been gathered systematically, not anecdotes or case reports. A rule must also balance the potential negative impact to patient care with realistic safety risks for infectious disease diagnostics.

Evaluation of analyte-specific reagents for the direct detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii.

Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) is a serious and sometimes fatal infection occurring in immunocompromised individuals. High-risk patients include those with low CD4 counts due to human immunodeficiency virus infection and transplant recipients. The incidence of PJP is increasing, and rapid detection of PJP is needed to effectively target treatment and improve patient outcomes. A common method used is an immunofluorescent assay (IFA), which has limitations, including labor costs, low sensitivity, and requirement for expert interpretation. This study evaluates the performance of the DiaSorin Molecular Pneumocystis jirovecii analyte-specific reagent (ASR) in a laboratory-developed test (LDT) for the direct detection of P. jirovecii DNA without prior nucleic acid extraction. Respiratory samples (n = 135) previously tested by IFA from 111 patients were included. Using a composite standard of in-house IFA and reference lab PJP PCR, the percent positive agreement for the LDT using the DiaSorin ASR was 97.8% (90/92). The negative percent agreement was 97.7% (42/43). The lower limit of detection of the assay was determined to be 1,200 copies/mL in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Analytical specificity was assessed using cultures of oropharyngeal flora and common respiratory bacterial and fungal pathogens. No cross-reactivity was observed. Our study suggests that the DiaSorin Pneumocystis ASR accurately detects P. jirovecii DNA and demonstrates improved sensitivity compared to the IFA method. IMPORTANCE: Our study is unique compared to other previously published studies on the DiaSorin analyte-specific reagent (ASR) because we focused on microbiological diagnostic methods commonly used (immunofluorescent assay) as opposed to pathology findings or reference PCR. In addition, in our materials and methods, we describe the protocol for the use of the DiaSorin ASR as a singleplex assay, which will allow other users to evaluate the ASR for clinical use in their lab.

QIAstat-Dx gastrointestinal panel and Luminex xTAG gastrointestinal pathogen panel comparative evaluation.

The diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis is an ongoing clinical challenge in terms of identification of the etiologic agent, time to results, and appropriate treatment. Rapid detection of gastrointestinal pathogens is needed to improve patient care. This study evaluates the performance of the QIAstat-Dx gastrointestinal panel (Q-GP; Investigational Use Only) compared to the Luminex xTAG gastrointestinal pathogen panel (L-GPP; US-IVD). Using 245 stool specimens, we evaluated 10 different targets including rotavirus, norovirus, Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, Escherichia coli O157, enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC). For the viral targets, the percent positive agreement (PPA) for rotavirus was 100% (n = 19) and that for norovirus was 91% (20/22). For the parasitic targets, the PPA was 100% for Giardia and Cryptosporidium (n = 18 and n = 23, respectively). The PPA was 96% for Salmonella (22/23) and Campylobacter (22/23), and the PPA for Shigella was 100% (n = 23). For the E. coli targets, a PPA of 94% was achieved for STEC (32/34) and 96% for ETEC (24/25). We did not assess PPA for the E. coli O157 target as the Q-GP O157 call is stx dependent. The negative percent agreement across all targets was 99.1%. Our study suggests that QIAstat-Dx GP provides comparable results to Luminex GPP based on the analysis of targets found on both panels.

Pandemic Demand for SARS-CoV-2 Testing Led to Critical Supply and Workforce Shortages in U.S. Clinical and Public Health Laboratories.

COVID-19 has brought unprecedented challenges to clinical and public health laboratories. While U.S. laboratories have continued striving to provide quality test results during the pandemic, the uncertainty and lack of supplies became a significant hurdle, hindering day-to-day laboratory operations and the ability to increase testing capacity for both SARS-CoV-2 and non-COVID-19 testing. In addition, long-standing laboratory workforce shortages became apparent, hindering the ability of clinical and public health laboratories to rapidly increase testing. The American Society for Microbiology, the College of American Pathologists, the National Coalition of STD Directors, and the Emerging Infections Network independently conducted surveys in 2020 and early 2021 to assess the capacity of the nation's clinical laboratories to respond to the increase in demand for testing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of these surveys highlighted the shortages of crucial supplies for SARS-CoV-2 testing and supplies for other routine laboratory diagnostics, as well as a shortage of trained personnel to perform testing. The conclusions are based on communications, observations, and the survey results of the clinical laboratory, public health, and professional organizations represented here. While the results of each survey considered separately may not be representative of the entire community, when considered together they provide remarkably similar results, further validating the findings and highlighting the importance of laboratory supply chains and the personnel capable of performing these tests for any response to a large-scale public health emergency.

The clinical epidemiology, management, and outcomes of patients diagnosed with encephalitis in North Carolina, 2015-2020.

IMPORTANCE: Despite the relatively high mortality and the difficulty in diagnosis, nearly one-third of patients hospitalized with a documented diagnosis of encephalitis did not undergo a lumbar puncture (LP). When an LP was performed, pathogen-specific testing was greatly underutilized. Infectious etiologies were most common, but over 40% of cases were idiopathic at discharge. These findings suggest that there is a substantial opportunity to improve the quality of care through more accurate and timely diagnosis.

Clinical and Infection Prevention Applications of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Genotyping: An Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Society for Microbiology Consensus Review Document.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged into a world of maturing pathogen genomics, with >2 million genomes sequenced at this writing. The rise of more transmissible variants of concern that affect vaccine and therapeutic effectiveness has led to widespread interest in SARS-CoV-2 evolution. Clinicians are also eager to take advantage of the information provided by SARS-CoV-2 genotyping beyond surveillance purposes. Here, we review the potential role of SARS-CoV-2 genotyping in clinical care. The review covers clinical use cases for SARS-CoV-2 genotyping, methods of SARS-CoV-2 genotyping, assay validation and regulatory requirements, clinical reporting for laboratories, and emerging issues in clinical SARS-CoV-2 sequencing. While clinical uses of SARS-CoV-2 genotyping are currently limited, rapid technological change along with a growing ability to interpret variants in real time foretell a growing role for SARS-CoV-2 genotyping in clinical care as continuing data emerge on vaccine and therapeutic efficacy.

Collaboration between Clinical and Academic Laboratories for Sequencing SARS-CoV-2 Genomes.

Genomic sequencing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to provide valuable insight into the ever-changing variant makeup of the COVID-19 pandemic. More than three million SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences have been deposited in Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID), but contributions from the United States, particularly through 2020, lagged the global effort. The primary goal of clinical microbiology laboratories is seldom rooted in epidemiologic or public health testing, and many laboratories do not contain in-house sequencing technology. However, we recognized the need for clinical microbiologists to lend expertise, share specimen resources, and partner with academic laboratories and sequencing cores to assist in SARS-CoV-2 epidemiologic sequencing efforts. Here, we describe two clinical and academic laboratory collaborations for SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequencing. We highlight roles of the clinical microbiologists and the academic laboratories, outline best practices, describe two divergent strategies in accomplishing a similar goal, and discuss the challenges with implementing and maintaining such programs.

Proceedings of the Clinical Microbiology Open 2018 and 2019 - a Discussion about Emerging Trends, Challenges, and the Future of Clinical Microbiology.

Clinical Microbiology Open (CMO), a meeting supported by the American Society for Microbiology's Clinical and Public Health Microbiology Committee (CPHMC) and Corporate Council, provides a unique interactive platform for leaders from diagnostic microbiology laboratories, industry, and federal agencies to discuss the current and future state of the clinical microbiology laboratory. The purpose is to leverage the group's diverse views and expertise to address critical challenges, and discuss potential collaborative opportunities for diagnostic microbiology, through the utilization of varied resources. The first and second CMO meetings were held in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Discussions were focused on the diagnostic potential of innovative technologies and laboratory diagnostic stewardship, including expansion of next-generation sequencing into clinical diagnostics, improvement and advancement of molecular diagnostics, emerging diagnostics, including rapid antimicrobial susceptibility and point of care testing (POCT), harnessing big data through artificial intelligence, and staffing in the clinical microbiology laboratory. Shortly after CMO 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic further highlighted the need for the diagnostic microbiology community to work together to utilize and expand on resources to respond to the pandemic. The issues, challenges, and potential collaborative efforts discussed during the past two CMO meetings proved critical in addressing the COVID-19 response by diagnostic laboratories, industry partners, and federal organizations. Planning for a third CMO (CMO 2022) is underway and will transition from a discussion-based meeting to an action-based meeting. The primary focus will be to reflect on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and better prepare for future pandemics.

Clinical and Infection Prevention Applications of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Genotyping: an Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Society for Microbiology Consensus Review Document.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged into a world of maturing pathogen genomics, with more than 2 million genomes sequenced at the time of writing. The rise of more transmissible variants of concern that impact vaccine and therapeutic effectiveness has led to widespread interest in SARS-CoV-2 evolution. Clinicians are also eager to take advantage of the information provided by SARS-CoV-2 genotyping beyond surveillance purposes. Here, we review the potential role of SARS-CoV-2 genotyping in clinical care. The review covers clinical use cases for SARS-CoV-2 genotyping, methods of SARS-CoV-2 genotyping, assay validation and regulatory requirements, and clinical reporting for laboratories, as well as emerging issues in clinical SARS-CoV-2 sequencing. While clinical uses of SARS-CoV-2 genotyping are currently limited, rapid technological change along with a growing ability to interpret variants in real time foretells a growing role for SARS-CoV-2 genotyping in clinical care as continuing data emerge on vaccine and therapeutic efficacy.

Cefiderocol for the Treatment of Adult and Pediatric Patients With Cystic Fibrosis and Achromobacter xylosoxidans Infections.

Treatment options for Achromobacter xylosoxidans are limited. Eight cystic fibrosis patients with A. xylosoxidans were treated with 12 cefiderocol courses. Pretreatment in vitro resistance was seen in 3 of 8 cases. Clinical response occurred after 11 of 12 treatment courses. However, microbiologic relapse was observed after 11 of 12 treatment courses, notably without emergence of resistance.

Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology Laboratories: Viruses Causing Acute Respiratory Tract Infections.

Respiratory viral infections are associated with a wide range of acute syndromes and infectious disease processes in children and adults worldwide. Many viruses are implicated in these infections, and these viruses are spread largely via respiratory means between humans but also occasionally from animals to humans. This article is an American Society for Microbiology (ASM)-sponsored Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology (PGCM) document identifying best practices for diagnosis and characterization of viruses that cause acute respiratory infections and replaces the most recent prior version of the ASM-sponsored Cumitech 21 document, Laboratory Diagnosis of Viral Respiratory Disease, published in 1986. The scope of the original document was quite broad, with an emphasis on clinical diagnosis of a wide variety of infectious agents and laboratory focus on antigen detection and viral culture. The new PGCM document is designed to be used by laboratorians in a wide variety of diagnostic and public health microbiology/virology laboratory settings worldwide. The article provides guidance to a rapidly changing field of diagnostics and outlines the epidemiology and clinical impact of acute respiratory viral infections, including preferred methods of specimen collection and current methods for diagnosis and characterization of viral pathogens causing acute respiratory tract infections. Compared to the case in 1986, molecular techniques are now the preferred diagnostic approaches for the detection of acute respiratory viruses, and they allow for automation, high-throughput workflows, and near-patient testing. These changes require quality assurance programs to prevent laboratory contamination as well as strong preanalytical screening approaches to utilize laboratory resources appropriately. Appropriate guidance from laboratorians to stakeholders will allow for appropriate specimen collection, as well as correct test ordering that will quickly identify highly transmissible emerging pathogens.

Point-Counterpoint: Should We Be Performing Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing for Infectious Disease Diagnosis in the Clinical Laboratory?

INTRODUCTIONWith established applications of next-generation sequencing in inherited diseases and oncology, clinical laboratories are evaluating the use of metagenomics for identification of infectious agents directly from patient samples, to aid in the diagnosis of infections. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing for infectious diseases promises an unbiased approach to detection of microbes that does not depend on growth in culture or the targeting of specific pathogens. However, the issues of contamination, interpretation of results, selection of databases used for analysis, and prediction of antimicrobial susceptibilities from sequencing data remain challenges. In this Point-Counterpoint, Steve Miller and Charles Chiu discuss the pros of using direct metagenomic sequencing, while Kyle Rodino and Melissa Miller argue for the use of caution.

Evaluation of a Novel Multiplex PCR Panel Compared to Quantitative Bacterial Culture for Diagnosis of Lower Respiratory Tract Infections.

Quantitative bacterial culture of bronchoalveolar lavage fluids (BALF) is labor-intensive, and the delay involved in performing culture, definitive identification, and susceptibility testing often results in prolonged use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. The Unyvero lower respiratory tract (LRT) panel (Curetis, Holzgerlingen, Germany) allows the multiplexed rapid detection and identification of 20 potential etiologic agents of pneumonia within 5 h of collection. In addition, the assay includes detection of gene sequences that confer antimicrobial resistance. We retrospectively compared the performance of the molecular panel to routine quantitative bacterial culture methods on remnant BALF. Upon testing 175 BALF, we were able to analyze positive agreement of 181 targets from 129 samples, and 46 samples were negative. The positive percent agreement (PPA) among the microbial targets was 96.5%, and the negative percent agreement (NPA) was 99.6%. The targets with a PPA of <100% were Staphylococcus aureus (34/37 [91.9%]), Streptococcus pneumoniae (10/11 [90.9%]), and Enterobacter cloacae complex (2/4 [50%]). For the analyzable resistance targets, concordance with phenotypic susceptibility testing was 79% (14/18). This study found the Unyvero LRT panel largely concordant with culture results; however, no outcome or clinical impact studies were performed.

When Should Asymptomatic Persons Be Tested for COVID-19?

On 24 August 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its website to highlight that asymptomatic individuals, even those with exposure to a COVID-19-positive contact, do not necessarily need to be tested unless they have medical conditions associated with increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19. The CDC subsequently updated its guidance on 19 September 2020 to support testing of asymptomatic persons, including close contacts of persons with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this editorial, the American Society for Microbiology Clinical and Public Health Microbiology Committee's Subcommittee on Laboratory Practices comments on testing of asymptomatic individuals relative to current medical knowledge of the virus and mitigation measures. Specific points are provided concerning such testing when undertaking contact tracing and routine surveillance. Limitations to consider when testing asymptomatic persons are covered, including the need to prioritize testing of contacts of positive COVID-19 cases. We urge the CDC to consult with primary stakeholders of COVID-19 testing when making such impactful changes in testing guidance.

Understanding, Verifying, and Implementing Emergency Use Authorization Molecular Diagnostics for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has brought a new wave of challenges to health care, particularly in the area of rapid diagnostic test development and implementation. The diagnosis of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is critically dependent on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from clinical specimens (e.g., nasopharyngeal swabs). While laboratory-developed testing for SARS-CoV-2 is an essential component of diagnostic testing for this virus, the majority of clinical microbiology laboratories are dependent on commercially available SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays. In contrast to assays approved or cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for in vitro diagnostic use, assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids have emergency use authorization (EUA) from the FDA. Outside of highly specialized academic and commercial laboratory settings, clinical microbiology laboratories are likely unfamiliar with the EUA classification, and thus, assay verification can be daunting. Further compounding anxiety for laboratories are major issues with the supply chain that are dramatically affecting the availability of test reagents and requiring laboratories to implement multiple commercial EUA tests. Here, we describe guidance for the verification of assays with EUA for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid from clinical specimens.

Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology Laboratories: Mycobacteria.

Mycobacteria are the causative organisms for diseases such as tuberculosis (TB), leprosy, Buruli ulcer, and pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacterial disease, to name the most important ones. In 2015, globally, almost 10 million people developed TB, and almost half a million patients suffered from its multidrug-resistant form. In 2016, a total of 9,287 new TB cases were reported in the United States. In 2015, there were 174,608 new case of leprosy worldwide. India, Brazil, and Indonesia reported the most leprosy cases. In 2015, the World Health Organization reported 2,037 new cases of Buruli ulcer, with most cases being reported in Africa. Pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacterial disease is an emerging public health challenge. The U.S. National Institutes of Health reported an increase from 20 to 47 cases/100,000 persons (or 8.2% per year) of pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacterial disease among adults aged 65 years or older throughout the United States, with 181,037 national annual cases estimated in 2014. This review describes contemporary methods for the laboratory diagnosis of mycobacterial diseases. Furthermore, the review considers the ever-changing health care delivery system and stresses the laboratory's need to adjust and embrace molecular technologies to provide shorter turnaround times and a higher quality of care for the patients who we serve.

Clinical Utility of Advanced Microbiology Testing Tools.

Advanced microbiology technologies are rapidly changing our ability to diagnose infections, improve patient care, and enhance clinical workflow. These tools are increasing the breadth, depth, and speed of diagnostic data generated per patient, and testing is being moved closer to the patient through rapid diagnostic technologies, including point-of-care (POC) technologies. While select stakeholders have an appreciation of the value/importance of improvements in the microbial diagnostic field, there remains a disconnect between clinicians and some payers and hospital administrators in terms of understanding the potential clinical utility of these novel technologies. Therefore, a key challenge for the clinical microbiology community is to clearly articulate the value proposition of these technologies to encourage payers to cover and hospitals to adopt advanced microbiology tests. Specific guidance on how to define and demonstrate clinical utility would be valuable. Addressing this challenge will require alignment on this topic, not just by microbiologists but also by primary care and emergency room (ER) physicians, infectious disease specialists, pharmacists, hospital administrators, and government entities with an interest in public health. In this article, we discuss how to best conduct clinical studies to demonstrate and communicate clinical utility to payers and to set reasonable expectations for what diagnostic manufacturers should be required to demonstrate to support reimbursement from commercial payers and utilization by hospital systems.

Comparison of the Xpert Flu/RSV XC and Xpress Flu/RSV Assays.

Molecular diagnostics for influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) have become commonplace, and various tests and systems have been cleared by the FDA for use in the United States. We performed a retrospective study to compare the Cepheid Xpress Flu/RSV assay with the Xpert Flu/RSV XC assay, using laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) as the reference method. The Xpress assay was 100% accurate compared to LDTs, whereas the Xpert Flu/RSV XC assay was 96.0% accurate. The Xpress test was determined to be faster and more sensitive than the XC assay.

Quantitative Thresholds Enable Accurate Identification of Clostridium difficile Infection by the Luminex xTAG Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel.

Clostridium difficile colonizes the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, resulting in either asymptomatic carriage or a spectrum of diarrheal illness. If clinical suspicion for C. difficile is low, stool samples are often submitted for analysis by multiplex molecular assays capable of detecting multiple GI pathogens, and some institutions do not report this organism due to concerns for high false-positive rates. Since clinical disease correlates with organism burden and molecular assays yield quantitative data, we hypothesized that numerical cutoffs could be utilized to improve the specificity of the Luminex xTAG GI pathogen panel (GPP) for C. difficile infection. Analysis of cotested liquid stool samples (n = 1,105) identified a GPP median fluorescence intensity (MFI) value cutoff of ≥1,200 to be predictive of two-step algorithm (2-SA; 96.4% concordance) and toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA) positivity. Application of this cutoff to a second cotested data set (n = 1,428) yielded 96.5% concordance. To determine test performance characteristics, concordant results were deemed positive or negative, and discordant results were adjudicated via chart review. Test performance characteristics for the MFI cutoff of ≥150 (standard), MFI cutoff of ≥1,200, and 2-SA were as follows (respectively): concordance, 95, 96, and 97%; sensitivity, 93, 78, and 90%; specificity, 95, 98, and 98%; positive predictive value, 67, 82, and 81%;, and negative predictive value, 99, 98, and 99%. To capture the high sensitivity for organism detection (MFI of ≥150) and high specificity for active infection (MFI of ≥1,200), we developed and applied a reporting algorithm to interpret GPP data from patients (n = 563) with clinician orders only for syndromic panel testing, thus enabling accurate reporting of C. difficile for 95% of samples (514 negative and 5 true positives) irrespective of initial clinical suspicion and without the need for additional testing.