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.

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: 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.

A conceptual framework for nomenclatural stability and validity of medically important fungi: a proposed global consensus guideline for fungal name changes supported by ABP, ASM, CLSI, ECMM, ESCMID-EFISG, EUCAST-AFST, FDLC, IDSA, ISHAM, MMSA, and MSGERC.

The rapid pace of name changes of medically important fungi is creating challenges for clinical laboratories and clinicians involved in patient care. We describe two sources of name change which have different drivers, at the species versus the genus level. Some suggestions are made here to reduce the number of name changes. We urge taxonomists to provide diagnostic markers of taxonomic novelties. Given the instability of phylogenetic trees due to variable taxon sampling, we advocate to maintain genera at the largest possible size. Reporting of identified species in complexes or series should where possible comprise both the name of the overarching species and that of the molecular sibling, often cryptic species. Because the use of different names for the same species will be unavoidable for many years to come, an open access online database of the names of all medically important fungi, with proper nomenclatural designation and synonymy, is essential. We further recommend that while taxonomic discovery continues, the adaptation of new name changes by clinical laboratories and clinicians be reviewed routinely by a standing committee for validation and stability over time, with reference to an open access database, wherein reasons for changes are listed in a transparent way.

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.

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.

Multiplex Fragment Analysis for Flexible Detection of All SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants continue to emerge, and effective tracking requires rapid return of results. Surveillance of variants is typically performed by whole genome sequencing (WGS), which can be financially prohibitive and requires specialized equipment and bioinformatic expertise. Genotyping approaches are rapid methods for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 variants but require continuous adaptation. Fragment analysis may represent an approach for improved SARS-CoV-2 variant detection. METHODS: A multiplex fragment analysis approach (CoVarScan) was validated using PCR targeting variants by size and fluorescent color. Eight SARS-CoV-2 mutational hot spots in variants of concern (VOCs) were targeted. Three primer pairs (recurrently deleted region [RDR] 1, RDR2, and RDR3-4) flank RDRs in the S-gene. Three allele-specific primers target recurrent spike receptor binding domain mutants. Lastly, 2 primer pairs target recurrent deletions or insertions in ORF1A and ORF8. Fragments were resolved and analyzed by capillary electrophoresis (ABI 3730XL), and mutational signatures were compared to WGS results. RESULTS: We validated CoVarScan using 3544 clinical respiratory specimens. The assay exhibited 96% sensitivity and 99% specificity compared to WGS. The limit of detection for the core targets (RDR1, RDR2, and ORF1A) was 5 copies/reaction. Variants were identified in 95% of samples with cycle threshold (CT) <30 and 75% of samples with a CT 34 to 35. Assay design was frozen April 2021, but all subsequent VOCs have been detected including Delta (n = 2820), Mu, (n = 6), Lambda (n = 6), and Omicron (n = 309). Genotyping results are available in as little as 4 h. CONCLUSIONS: Multiplex fragment analysis is adaptable and rapid and has similar accuracy to WGS to classify SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Association of ß-Lactam Allergy Documentation and Prophylactic Antibiotic Use in Surgery: A National Cross-Sectional Study of Hospitalized Patients.

Alternative antibiotics for surgical prophylaxis are associated with increased adverse events and surgical site infection compared to cefazolin. In a sample of perioperative inpatients from 100 hospitals in the United States, cefazolin was 9-fold less likely to be used in patients with a documented ß-lactam allergy whereas clindamycin was 45-fold more likely.

Penicillin Allergy Evaluation Access: A National Survey.

In a study of 121 hospitals from 38 US states, 44% had access to an allergist for inpatient consultations and 39% had access to inpatient penicillin skin testing, indicating that the majority of US hospitals lack sufficient resources to address inpatient penicillin allergies.

Laboratory-developed test regulation and the immunocompromised patient: uncertainty ahead.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) are essential for the clinical care of immunocompromised individuals. These patients often require specialized testing not available from commercial manufacturers and are therefore dependent on the laboratory to create, validate, and perform these assays. Recent paradigm-shifting legislation could alter the way that LDTs are operationalized and regulated. RECENT FINDINGS: On March 5th, 2020 the Verifying Accurate and Leading-Edge In-Vitro Clinical Tests Development Act (VALID) was introduced in the US Congress. This statute would overhaul existing regulatory framework by unifying the oversight of LDTs and commercial in-vitro diagnostic tests (IVDs) through the FDA. If enacted, LDTs would be subject to regulatory requirements like those found in commercial submissions for market review. Stakeholders continue to discuss the details and scope of the proposed legislation in the setting of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 pandemic, where LDTs are integral to the national COVID-19 response. SUMMARY: Congressional lawmakers have introduced legislation to alter the regulatory framework governing LDTs. Moving forward, a balance must be struck to ensure the availability of safe and accurate testing without delays or overregulation that could be harmful to patients. The downstream implications of how VALID and other legislation will impact laboratories, clinicians, and patients warrant close examination.

Antifungal Therapy in Fungal Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections.

BACKGROUND: Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are life-threatening surgical emergencies associated with high morbidity and mortality. Fungal NSTIs are considered rare and have been largely understudied. The purpose of this study was to study the impact of fungal NSTIs and antifungal therapy on mortality after NSTIs. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients with NSTIs from 2012 to 2018. Patient baseline characteristics, microbiologic data, antimicrobial therapy, and clinical outcomes were collected. Patients were excluded if they had comfort care before excision. The primary outcome measured was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 215 patients met study criteria with a fungal species identified in 29 patients (13.5%). The most prevalent fungal organism was Candida tropicalis (n = 11). Fungal NSTIs were more prevalent in patients taking immunosuppressive medications (17.2% versus 3.2%, P = 0.01). A fungal NSTI was significantly associated with in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 3.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-8.40; P = 0.02). Furthermore, fungal NSTI patients had longer lengths of stay (32 d [interquartile range, 16-53] versus 19 d [interquartile range, 11-31], P < 0.01), more likely to require initiation of renal replacement therapy (24.1% versus 8.6%, P = 0.02), and more likely to require mechanical ventilation (64.5% versus 42.0%, P = 0.02). Initiation of antifungals was associated with a significantly lower rate of in-hospital mortality (6.7% versus 57.1%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Fungal NSTIs are more common in patients taking immunosuppressive medications and are significantly associated with in-hospital mortality. Antifungal therapy is associated with decreased in-hospital mortality in those with fungal NSTIs. Consideration should be given to adding antifungals in empiric treatment regimens, especially in those taking immunosuppressive medications.

Why Can't We Just Use PCR? The Role of Genotypic versus Phenotypic Testing for Antimicrobial Resistance Testing.

There is a need for phenotypic susceptibility testing that is expeditious and that can be performed directly from clinical specimens. While rapid pathogen identification is important, it is the susceptibility result that is essential for antimicrobial optimization. The options for rapid susceptibility testing are limited, with the majority of commercial tests available offering genotypic resistance detection only. In this article, a laboratorian and a clinician discuss the benefits and limitations of genotypic and phenotypic susceptibility testing and provide examples of how results should be interpreted to maximize the clinical utility.

Diagnostics and laboratory role in outbreaks.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The review describes the investigative benefits of traditional and novel molecular epidemiology techniques, while acknowledging the limitations faced by clinical laboratories seeking to implement these methods. RECENT FINDINGS: Pulse-field gel electrophoresis and other traditional techniques remain powerful tools in outbreak investigations and continue to be used by multiple groups. Newer techniques such as matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass-spectrometry and whole genome sequencing show great promise. However, there is a lack of standardization regarding definitions for genetic relatedness, nor are there established criteria for accuracy and reproducibility. There are also challenges regarding availability of trained bioinformatics staff, and concerns regarding reimbursement. SUMMARY: There are many tools available for molecular epidemiologic investigation. Epidemiologists and clinical laboratorians should work together to determine which testing methods are best for each institution.

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: long-term safety and efficacy.

Aim: To compare long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate) and atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), respectively, in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). Patients & methods: Patient-level data from a centanafadine trial (NCT03605849) and published aggregate data from a lisdexamfetamine trial (NCT00337285), a methylphenidate trial (NCT00326300) and an atomoxetine trial (NCT00190736) were used. Patient characteristics were matched in each comparison using propensity score weighting. Study outcomes were assessed up to 52 weeks and included safety (rates of adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale [AISRS] or ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] score). Results: In all comparisons of matched populations, risks of AEs were statistically significantly lower with centanafadine or non-different between centanafadine and comparator; the largest differences in AE rates included upper respiratory tract infection (risk difference in percentage points: 18.75), insomnia (12.47) and dry mouth (12.33) versus lisdexamfetamine; decreased appetite (20.25), headache (18.53) and insomnia (12.65) versus methylphenidate; and nausea (26.18), dry mouth (25.07) and fatigue (13.95) versus atomoxetine (all p < 0.05). Centanafadine had a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score versus lisdexamfetamine (6.15-point difference; p < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score versus methylphenidate (1.75-point difference; p = 0.13) and versus atomoxetine (1.60-point difference; p = 0.21). Conclusion: At up to 52 weeks, centanafadine showed significantly lower incidence of several AEs than lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine; efficacy was lower than lisdexamfetamine and non-different from methylphenidate and atomoxetine.

Diagnostic stewardship and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: Lessons learned for prevention of emerging infectious diseases in acute-care settings.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has demonstrated the importance of stewardship of viral diagnostic tests to aid infection prevention efforts in healthcare facilities. We highlight diagnostic stewardship lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and discuss how diagnostic stewardship principles can inform management and mitigation of future emerging pathogens in acute-care settings. Diagnostic stewardship during the COVID-19 pandemic evolved as information regarding transmission (eg, routes, timing, and efficiency of transmission) became available. Diagnostic testing approaches varied depending on the availability of tests and when supplies and resources became available. Diagnostic stewardship lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic include the importance of prioritizing robust infection prevention mitigation controls above universal admission testing and considering preprocedure testing, contact tracing, and surveillance in the healthcare facility in certain scenarios. In the future, optimal diagnostic stewardship approaches should be tailored to specific pathogen virulence, transmissibility, and transmission routes, as well as disease severity, availability of effective treatments and vaccines, and timing of infectiousness relative to symptoms. This document is part of a series of papers developed by the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America on diagnostic stewardship in infection prevention and antibiotic stewardship.1.

Evaluation of the nanosphere verigene gram-positive blood culture assay with the VersaTREK blood culture system and assessment of possible impact on selected patients.

The Verigene Gram-positive blood culture (BC-GP) assay (Nanosphere, Northbrook, IL) is a molecular method for the rapid identification of Gram-positive organisms and resistance markers directly from blood culture bottles. A total of 148 VersaTREK REDOX 1 40-ml aerobic bottles demonstrating Gram-positive bacteria were tested. Results were compared with those from conventional biochemical and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) identifications. We obtained isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (24), methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) (14), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) (17), methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus epidermidis (MSSE) (9), other coagulase-negative staphylococci (19), Streptococcus salivarius (5), Streptococcus parasanguinis (2), Streptococcus sanguinis (1), Streptococcus cristatus (1), the Streptococcus bovis group (5), Streptococcus agalactiae (9), the Streptococcus anginosus group (1), Streptococcus pneumoniae (6), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE FCM) (16), vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecalis (3), Aerococcus viridans (2), Bacillus (6), Corynebacterium (8), Lactobacillus (2), Micrococcus (2), Neisseria mucosa (1), Escherichia coli (3), Candida tropicalis (1), Propionibacterium (1), and Rothia (1). Overall agreement with the culture results was 95%. A total of 137 of 138 (99%) monomicrobial cultures were concordant. We tested 9 polymicrobial samples and found 33% agreement. A chart review of 31 patients with MRSA, MSSA, or VRE demonstrated that the Nanosphere BC-GP assay might have led to more appropriate antibiotic selection for these patients an average of 42 h earlier. Additionally, contact isolation could have been initiated an average of 37 h earlier for patients with MRSA or VRE. The BC-GP assay may have a positive impact on patient care, health care costs, and antibiotic stewardship.