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.

Development and validation of a next-generation sequencing assay with open-access analysis software for detecting resistance-associated mutations in CMV.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) resistance testing by targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) allows for the simultaneous analysis of multiple genes. We developed and validated an amplicon-based Ion Torrent NGS assay to detect CMV resistance mutations in UL27, UL54, UL56, and UL97 and compared the results to standard Sanger sequencing. NGS primers were designed to generate 83 overlapping amplicons of four CMV genes (~10 kb encompassing 138 mutation sites). An open-access software plugin was developed to perform read alignment, call variants, and interpret drug resistance. Plasmids were tested to determine NGS error rate and minor variant limit of detection. NGS limit of detection was determined using the CMV WHO International Standard and quantified clinical specimens. Reproducibility was also assessed. After establishing quality control metrics, 185 patient specimens previously tested using Sanger were reanalyzed by NGS. The NGS assay had a low error rate (<0.05%) and high accuracy (95%) for detecting CMV-associated resistance mutations present at ≥5% in contrived mixed populations. Mutation sites were reproducibly sequenced with 40× coverage when plasma viral loads were ≥2.6 log IU/mL. NGS detected the same resistance-associated mutations identified by Sanger in 68/69 (98.6%) specimens. In 16 specimens, NGS detected 18 resistance mutations that Sanger failed to detect; 14 were low-frequency variants (<20%), and six would have changed the drug resistance interpretation. The NGS assay showed excellent agreement with Sanger and generated high-quality sequence from low viral load specimens. Additionally, the higher resolution and analytic sensitivity of NGS potentially enables earlier detection of antiviral resistance.

Priorities and Progress in Diagnostic Research by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group.

The advancement of infectious disease diagnostics, along with studies devoted to infections caused by gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria, is a top scientific priority of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG). Diagnostic tests for infectious diseases are rapidly evolving and improving. However, the availability of rapid tests designed to determine antibacterial resistance or susceptibility directly in clinical specimens remains limited, especially for gram-negative organisms. Additionally, the clinical impact of many new tests, including an understanding of how best to use them to inform optimal antibiotic prescribing, remains to be defined. This review summarizes the recent work of the ARLG toward addressing these unmet needs in the diagnostics field and describes future directions for clinical research aimed at curbing the threat of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections.

Sequence-based diagnostics and precision medicine in bacterial and viral infections: from bench to bedside.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Nucleic acid sequence-based organism identification plays an important role in the diagnosis and management of transplant and cancer-associated infectious diseases. Here, we provide a high-level overview of advanced sequencing technologies, discuss test performance, and highlight unmet research needs with a focus on immunocompromised hosts. RECENT FINDINGS: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are powerful tools with a growing role in managing immunocompromised patients with suspected infection. Targeted NGS (tNGS) can identify pathogens directly from patient specimens, especially for mixed samples, and has been used to detect resistance mutations in transplant-related viruses (e.g. CMV). Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly used for outbreak investigations and infection control. Metagenomic NGS (mNGS) is useful for hypothesis-free testing and can simultaneously assess pathogens and host response to infection. SUMMARY: NGS testing increases diagnostic yield relative to standard culture and Sanger sequencing but may be limited by high cost, turnaround times, and detection of unexpected organisms or commensals of uncertain significance. Close collaboration with the clinical microbiology laboratory and infectious diseases is recommended when NGS testing is considered. Additional research is required to understand which immunocompromised patients are most likely to benefit from NGS testing, and when testing should ideally be performed.

Tale of the Titers: Serologic Testing for SARS-CoV-2-Yes, No, and Maybe, With Clinical Examples From the IDSA Diagnostics Committee.

Diagnosis of acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection relies on detection of viral antigens or amplified viral nucleic acids. Serology, although invaluable for epidemiology, is not routinely needed clinically. However, in some settings, serologic data may have direct clinical utility: for example, in evaluation of persistent symptoms in patients without a prior diagnosis of acute infection. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing is sometimes used or requested in situations in which existing data do not support it, such as determination of need for vaccination. In this study, we describe available methods of serologic testing and provide cases supported by clinical vignettes of where such tests can be helpful, as well as examples where they are not. These examples may help clarify clinical decision making in this rapidly evolving area.

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.

Pathogen-agnostic immune biomarkers that predict infection after solid organ transplantation.

Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) remain at high risk for infection throughout their post-transplant course. Dosing of immunosuppressive medications, strategies that prevent infection, and choice of empiric antimicrobial treatment could be optimized by a better understanding of an individual patient's risk for infectious complications. Diagnostic tests that qualitatively or quantitatively measure the function of the immune system and/or its response to infection may be useful for individualized management decisions. Numerous studies have identified an association between infectious outcomes after solid organ transplantation (SOT) and the results of a variety of non-pathogen-specific or "pathogen-agnostic" immune monitoring tests. These biomarkers include humoral immune markers, functional or quantitative assessments of cellular immunity, transcriptomic-based diagnostics, and replication of viruses within the human virome, which have been used to predict or diagnose a variety of different infectious diseases complicating SOT. In this narrative review, we discuss several host-derived immune biomarkers that show promise for either predicting or diagnosing infection among SOTRs. However, additional studies are needed to determine the optimal use of immune response testing. Whether immune biomarkers contribute added benefits to current standard clinical care has not yet been determined. Testing must be validated across a range of clinical scenarios, including surveillance to predict infection risk and diagnosis of active infection at various time points post transplant.

Reporting of Antimicrobial Resistance from Blood Cultures, an Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Survey Summary: Resistance Marker Reporting Practices from Positive Blood Cultures.

BACKGROUND: We assessed how laboratories use and handle reporting of results of rapid diagnostics performed on positive blood culture broths, with a focus on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) markers. METHODS: A survey assembled by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Diagnostics Committee was circulated from December 2020 to May 2021. The survey was sent to local hospitals, shared on the ClinMicroNet and Division C listservs, and included in a College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey. RESULTS: Ninety-six laboratories of various sizes across the United States (95%) and outside of the United States (5%) participated. Of the laboratories that had at least 1 rapid diagnostic in place (94%), significant heterogeneity in methods used and reporting practices was found across community (52%) and academic (40%) laboratories serving hospitals of various sizes. Respondents had implemented 1 to 6 different panels/platforms for a total of 31 permutations. Methods of reporting rapid organism identification and AMR results varied from listing all targets as "detected"/"not detected" (16-22%) without interpretive guidance, to interpreting results (23-42%), or providing therapeutic guidance comments to patient-facing healthcare teams (3-17%). CONCLUSIONS: Current approaches to reporting molecular AMR test results from positive blood culture vary significantly across clinical laboratories. Providing interpretative comments with therapeutic guidance alongside results reported may assist clinicians who are not well-versed in genetic mechanisms of AMR. However, this is currently not being done in all clinical laboratories. Standardized strategies for AMR gene result reporting are needed.

Characterization of the Cytopathic Effects of Monkeypox Virus Isolated from Clinical Specimens and Differentiation from Common Viral Exanthems.

While the practice of viral culture has largely been replaced by nucleic acid amplification tests, circumstances still exist in which the availability of viral culture will allow for the diagnosis of infections not included in a provider's differential diagnosis. Here, we examine the cytopathic effects (CPE) and clinical data associated with 18 cases of monkeypox virus (MPXV) isolated from 19 clinical samples submitted for viral culture. During the study period, a total of 3,468 viral cultures were performed with herpes simplex virus (HSV) most commonly isolated (646/3,468; 18.6%), followed by MPXV (19/3,468; 0.6%) and varicella-zoster virus (VZV) (12/3,468; 0.4%). Most MPXV-positive samples were obtained from males (14/19) and taken from genital (7/19) or rectal lesions (5/19). Cycle threshold values of tested samples ranged from 15.3 to 29.0. Growth of MPXV in cell culture was rapid, yielding detectable CPE at a median of 2 days (range: 1 to 4) often with >50% of the monolayer affected in RMK, BGM, A549, and MRC-5 cell lines. As clinical features of MPXV, HSV, and VZV lesions may overlap, CPE patterns were compared between viruses. HSV CPE developed in a similar time frame (median: 2 days, range: 1 to 7) but was more often negative in RMK cells relative to MPXV. VZV grew more slowly (median: 9 days, range: 5 to 11) and demonstrated CPE affecting ≤25% of cell monolayers when positive. Viral culture remains an important tool for the detection of rare or emerging viral pathogens, particularly when high viral load specimens are easily obtained.

Performance of Non-nasopharyngeal Sample Types for Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Nasopharyngeal swabs have historically been considered the preferred specimen type for the detection of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. However, in response to a global pandemic with shortages of swabs and specimen transport media, limited access to qualified health care personnel, and needs for large-scale testing in nonmedical settings, alternative sample types have been validated for COVID-19 diagnosis. The purpose of this review is to highlight the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of non-nasopharyngeal respiratory samples for SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic testing.

Consensus Definitions of BK Polyomavirus Nephropathy in Renal Transplant Recipients for Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: BK polyomavirus (BKPyV) infection and BK polyomavirus nephropathy (BKPyVAN) are important causes of allograft dysfunction and premature allograft loss in renal transplant recipients. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Controlled clinical trials to evaluate new agents for prevention and treatment are needed but are hampered by the lack of outcome measures that accurately assess the effect of the intervention, are clinically relevant, and are acceptable from a regulatory perspective. METHODS: To facilitate consistent end points in clinical trials and to support clinical research and drug development, definitions of BKPyV infection and disease have been developed by the BK Disease Definitions Working Group of the Transplantation Associated Virus Infection Forum with the Forum for Collaborative Research, which consists of scientists, clinicians, regulators, and industry representatives. CONCLUSIONS: These definitions refine established principles of "proven" BKPyV disease and introduce a "probable" disease category that could be used in clinical trials to prevent or treat BKPyVAN in renal transplant recipients.

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.

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.

Envisioning Future Urinary Tract Infection Diagnostics.

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common bacterial infections in the United States and are a major driver of antibiotic use, both appropriate and inappropriate, across healthcare settings. Novel UTI diagnostics are a strategy that might enable better UTI treatment. Members of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Laboratory Center and the Infectious Diseases Society of America Diagnostics Committee convened to envision ideal future UTI diagnostics, with a view towards improving delivery of healthcare, patient outcomes and experiences, and antibiotic use, addressing which types of UTI diagnostics are needed and how companies might approach development of novel UTI diagnostics.

Adaptive immunity induces mutualism between commensal eukaryotes.

Pathogenic fungi reside in the intestinal microbiota but rarely cause disease. Little is known about the interactions between fungi and the immune system that promote commensalism. Here we investigate the role of adaptive immunity in promoting mutual interactions between fungi and host. We find that potentially pathogenic Candida species induce and are targeted by intestinal immunoglobulin A (IgA) responses. Focused studies on Candida albicans reveal that the pathogenic hyphal morphotype, which is specialized for adhesion and invasion, is preferentially targeted and suppressed by intestinal IgA responses. IgA from mice and humans directly targets hyphal-enriched cell-surface adhesins. Although typically required for pathogenesis, C. albicans hyphae are less fit for gut colonization1,2 and we show that immune selection against hyphae improves the competitive fitness of C. albicans. C. albicans exacerbates intestinal colitis3 and we demonstrate that hyphae and an IgA-targeted adhesin exacerbate intestinal damage. Finally, using a clinically relevant vaccine to induce an adhesin-specific immune response protects mice from C. albicans-associated damage during colitis. Together, our findings show that adaptive immunity suppresses harmful fungal effectors, with benefits to both C. albicans and its host. Thus, IgA uniquely uncouples colonization from pathogenesis in commensal fungi to promote homeostasis.

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.