Advancing Diagnostic Stewardship for Healthcare-Associated Infections, Antibiotic Resistance, and Sepsis.

Diagnostic stewardship means ordering the right tests for the right patient at the right time to inform optimal clinical care. Diagnostic stewardship is an integral part of antibiotic stewardship efforts to optimize antibiotic use and improve patient outcomes, including reductions in antibiotic resistance and treatment of sepsis. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion hosted a meeting on improving patient safety through diagnostic stewardship with a focus on use of the laboratory. At the meeting, emerging issues in the field of diagnostic stewardship were identified, awareness of these issues among stakeholders was raised, and strategies and interventions to address the issues were discussed-all with an emphasis on improved outcomes and patient safety. Here, we summarize the key takeaways of the meeting including needs for diagnostic stewardship implementation, promising future avenues for diagnostic stewardship implementation, and areas of needed research.

Is frequent CD4+ T-lymphocyte count monitoring necessary for persons with counts >=300 cells/µL and HIV-1 suppression?

Among patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), those with HIV-1 RNA <200 copies/mL and CD4 counts ≥300 cells/µL had a 97.1% probability of maintaining durable CD4 ≥200 cells/µL for 4 years. When non-HIV causes of CD4 lymphopenia were excluded, the probability rose to 99.2%. Our data support less frequent CD4 monitoring during viral suppression.

Raccoon rabies virus variant transmission through solid organ transplantation.

IMPORTANCE: The rabies virus causes a fatal encephalitis and can be transmitted through tissue or organ transplantation. In February 2013, a kidney recipient with no reported exposures to potentially rabid animals died from rabies 18 months after transplantation. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether organ transplantation was the source of rabies virus exposure in the kidney recipient, and to evaluate for and prevent rabies in other transplant recipients from the same donor. DESIGN: Organ donor and all transplant recipient medical records were reviewed. Laboratory tests to detect rabies virus-specific binding antibodies, rabies virus neutralizing antibodies, and rabies virus antigens were conducted on available specimens, including serum, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissues from the donor and the recipients. Viral ribonucleic acid was extracted from tissues and amplified for nucleoprotein gene sequencing for phylogenetic comparisons. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Determination of whether the donor died from undiagnosed rabies and whether other organ recipients developed rabies. RESULTS: In retrospect, the donor's clinical presentation (which began with vomiting and upper extremity paresthesias and progressed to fever, seizures, dysphagia, autonomic dysfunction, and brain death) was consistent with rabies. Rabies virus antigen was detected in archived autopsy brain tissue collected from the donor. The rabies viruses infecting the donor and the deceased kidney recipient were consistent with the raccoon rabies virus variant and were more than 99.9% identical across the entire N gene (1349/1350 nucleotides), thus confirming organ transplantation as the route of transmission. The 3 other organ recipients remained asymptomatic, with rabies virus neutralizing antibodies detected in their serum after completion of postexposure prophylaxis (range, 0.3-40.8 IU/mL). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Unlike the 2 previous clusters of rabies virus transmission through solid organ transplantation, there was a long incubation period in the recipient who developed rabies, and survival of 3 other recipients without pretransplant rabies vaccination. Rabies should be considered in patients with acute progressive encephalitis of unexplained etiology, especially for potential organ donors. A standard evaluation of potential donors who meet screening criteria for infectious encephalitis should be considered, and risks and benefits for recipients of organs from these donors should be evaluated.

A Trans-Governmental Collaboration to Independently Evaluate SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 created a crucial need for serology assays to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, which led to many serology assays entering the market. A trans-government collaboration was created in April 2020 to independently evaluate the performance of commercial SARS-CoV-2 serology assays and help inform U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory decisions. To assess assay performance, three evaluation panels with similar antibody titer distributions were assembled. Each panel consisted of 110 samples with positive (n = 30) serum samples with a wide range of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers and negative (n = 80) plasma and/or serum samples that were collected before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Each sample was characterized for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against the spike protein using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). Samples were selected for the panel when there was agreement on seropositivity by laboratories at National Cancer Institute's Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (NCI-FNLCR) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The sensitivity and specificity of each assay were assessed to determine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) suitability. As of January 8, 2021, results from 91 evaluations were made publicly available (https://open.fda.gov/apis/device/covid19serology/, and https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/serology-surveillance/serology-test-evaluation.html). Sensitivity ranged from 27% to 100% for IgG (n = 81), from 10% to 100% for IgM (n = 74), and from 73% to 100% for total or pan-immunoglobulins (n = 5). The combined specificity ranged from 58% to 100% (n = 91). Approximately one-third (n = 27) of the assays evaluated are now authorized by FDA for emergency use. This collaboration established a framework for assay performance evaluation that could be used for future outbreaks and could serve as a model for other technologies. IMPORTANCE The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a crucial need for accurate serology assays to evaluate seroprevalence and antiviral immune responses. The initial flood of serology assays entering the market with inadequate performance emphasized the need for independent evaluation of commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays using performance evaluation panels to determine suitability for use under EUA. Through a government-wide collaborative network, 91 commercial SARS-CoV-2 serology assay evaluations were performed. Three evaluation panels with similar overall antibody titer distributions were assembled to evaluate performance. Nearly one-third of the assays evaluated met acceptable performance recommendations, and two assays had EUAs revoked and were removed from the U.S. market based on inadequate performance. Data for all serology assays evaluated are available at the FDA and CDC websites (https://open.fda.gov/apis/device/covid19serology/, and https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/serology-surveillance/serology-test-evaluation.html).

Drug-device trials for infectious diseases: CDRH perspective.

Assessing the performance of new diagnostic tests for infectious diseases has traditionally focused on comparing the new assay against a reference standard such as culture. In this paper, we suggest that clinical trial designs with both a diagnostic and therapeutic component may be necessary to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of nonmicrobiologically based assays, with a specific emphasis on the test/marker-stratified design. General design challenges for trials of infectious diseases that simultaneously study both diagnostic and therapeutic components (eg, both devices and drugs) are also discussed.