Search

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.

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 effect (CPE) and clinical data associated with eighteen cases of monkeypox virus (MPXV) isolated from nineteen clinical samples submitted for viral culture. During the study period a total of 3,468 viral cultures were performed with herpes simplex virus most commonly isolated (646/3,468; 18.6%), followed by monkeypox virus (19/3,468; 0.6%) and varicella zoster virus (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: 1-4) 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 comparted between viruses. HSV CPE developed in a similar time frame (median: 2 days, range: 1-7) but was more often negative in RMK cells relative to MPXV. VZV grew more slowly (median: 9 days, range: 5-11) 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.

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.

To expand the available donor pool, many organ procurement organizations and transplant programs have begun to consider severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus(SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid test positive candidates(1). It is becoming increasingly clear that not all donors with a positive nucleic acid amplification test for SARS-CoV-2 are contagious, and some of these organs can be transplanted with careful selection(2, 3). Data from 31 kidney transplants from living donors with resolved COVID-19 in India showed the safety of this approach(4). However, it is unknown whether kidneys from donors with active COVID-19 can also be safely transplanted(3, 5). Beyond the "active" infection designation, it is clinically possible to risk stratify donors with COVID-19 based on additional parameters such as clinical history and radiologic or laboratory findings. Here we present a case and 210-day outcome of a successful kidney transplantation from otherwise medically suitable SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive deceased donors.

The purpose of this study was to assess how laboratories are using and handling reporting of rapid diagnostics, with a focus on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) markers from multiplex molecular panels, performed on positive blood culture broths.A survey assembled by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) Diagnostics Committee (DC) 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 (CAP) proficiency testing survey.Ninety-six laboratories of various sizes across the United States (US; 95%) and outside of the US (5%) participated. Of the laboratories that had at least one 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 different 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%).Current approaches to reporting molecular AMR test results from positive blood culture varies significantly across clinical laboratories. Providing interpretative comments with therapeutic guidance within the result report may assist clinicians less familiar with the genetic mechanisms of AMR, but this is not currently being done in all clinical laboratories. Standardized strategies for AMR gene result reporting are needed.

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.

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.

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. Studies of mouse and human IgA responses against Candida albicans and other common fungal species show that host adaptive immunity selects for fungal effectors that promote commensalism and prevent intestinal disease.

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 ~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. 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 nonmedical settings. 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. The panel agreed on 5 diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies. Data on the clinical performance of US Food and Drug Administration SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization are 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 with reference NAAT methods. Antigen test sensitivity is heavily dependent on viral load, with differences observed between symptomatic compared with asymptomatic individuals and the time of testing post-onset of symptoms. Based on these observations, rapid reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (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.

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.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.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.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.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.

Rapid and widespread implementation of infectious disease surveillance is a critical component in the response to novel health threats. Molecular assays are the preferred method to detect a broad range of viral pathogens with high sensitivity and specificity. The implementation of molecular assay testing in a rapidly evolving public health emergency, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, can be hindered by resource availability or technical constraints. We present a screening strategy that is easily scaled up to support a sustained large volume of testing over long periods of time. This non-adaptive pooled-sample screening protocol employs Bayesian inference to yield a reportable outcome for each individual sample in a single testing step (no confirmation of positive results required). The proposed method is validated using clinical specimens tested using a real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2. This screening protocol has substantial advantages for its implementation, including higher sample throughput, faster time to results, no need to retrieve previously screened samples from storage to undergo retesting, and excellent performance of the algorithm's sensitivity and specificity compared with the individual test's metrics.

We compared the performance of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 antigen card to that of a standard reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay (Thermo Fisher TaqPath COVID-19 Combo kit) for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2,645 asymptomatic students presenting for screening at the University of Utah. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 1.7% of the study participants by RT-PCR., We compared the performance of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 antigen card to that of a standard reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay (Thermo Fisher TaqPath COVID-19 Combo kit) for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2,645 asymptomatic students presenting for screening at the University of Utah. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 1.7% of the study participants by RT-PCR. BinaxNOW identified 24 infections but missed 21 infections that were detected by RT-PCR. The analytical sensitivity (positive agreement) and analytical specificity (negative agreement) for the BinaxNOW were 53.3% and 100%, respectively, compared to the RT-PCR assay. The median cycle threshold (CT) value in the specimens that had concordant positive BinaxNOW antigen results was significantly lower than that of specimens that were discordant (CT of 17.6 versus 29.6; P

Testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients is an important component of the multifaceted approach of managing the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Determining how to best define testing strategies for different populations and incorporating these into broader infection prevention programs can be complex. Many circumstances are not addressed by federal, local, or professional guidelines. This commentary describes various scenarios in which testing of symptomatic or asymptomatic individuals for SARS-CoV-2 virus (antigen or ribonucleic acid) can be of potential benefit. Consideration to pretest probability, risks of testing (impact of false-positive or false-negative results), testing strategy, as well as action based on test results are explored. Testing, regardless of setting, must be incorporated into overarching infection control plans, which include use of personal protective equipment (eg, masks), physically distancing, and isolation when exposure is suspected.

COVID‐19 causes severe disease with poor outcomes. We tested the hypothesis that early SARS‐CoV‐2 viral infection disrupts innate immune responses. These changes may be important for understanding subsequent clinical outcomes. We obtained residual nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals who requested COVID‐19 testing for symptoms at drive‐through COVID‐19 clinical testing sites operated by the University of Utah. We applied multiplex immunoassays, real‐time polymerase chain reaction assays and quantitative proteomics to 20 virus‐positive and 20 virus‐negative samples. ACE‐2 transcripts increased with infection (OR =17.4, 95% CI [CI] =4.78–63.8) and increasing viral N1 protein transcript load (OR =1.16, CI =1.10–1.23). Transcripts for two interferons (IFN) were elevated, IFN‐λ1 (OR =71, CI =7.07–713) and IFN‐λ2 (OR =40.2, CI =3.86–419), and closely associated with viral N1 transcripts (OR =1.35, CI =1.23–1.49 and OR =1.33 CI =1.20–1.47, respectively). Only transcripts for IP‐10 were increased among systemic inflammatory cytokines that we examined (OR =131, CI =1.01–2620). We found widespread discrepancies between transcription and translation. IFN proteins were unchanged or decreased in infected samples (IFN‐γ OR =0.90 CI =0.33–0.79, IFN‐λ2,3 OR =0.60 CI =0.48–0.74) suggesting viral‐induced shut‐off of host antiviral protein responses. However, proteins for IP‐10 (OR =3.74 CI =2.07–6.77) and several interferon‐stimulated genes (ISG) increased with viral load (BST‐1 OR =25.1, CI =3.33–188; IFIT1 OR =19.5, CI =4.25–89.2; IFIT3 OR =245, CI =15–4020; MX‐1 OR =3.33, CI =1.44–7.70). Older age was associated with substantial modifications of some effects. Ambulatory symptomatic patients had an innate immune response with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection characterized by elevated IFN, proinflammatory cytokine and ISG transcripts, but there is evidence of a viral‐induced host shut‐off of antiviral responses. Our findings may characterize the disrupted immune landscape common in patients with early disease., SARS‐CoV‐2 disrupts the innate immune landscape. Interferon‐lambda transcripts are increased but protein production may be blocked by viral shut‐off. However, key interferon‐stimulated antiviral genes are transcribed and translated.

Fungal infections are a rising threat to our immunocompromised patient population, as well as other nonimmunocompromised patients with various medical conditions. However, little progress has been made in the past decade to improve fungal diagnostics. To jointly address this diagnostic challenge, the Fungal Diagnostics Laboratory Consortium (FDLC) was recently created. The FDLC consists of 26 laboratories from the United States and Canada that routinely provide fungal diagnostic services for patient care. A survey of fungal diagnostic capacity among the 26 members of the FDLC was recently completed, identifying the following diagnostic gaps: lack of molecular detection of mucormycosis; lack of an optimal diagnostic algorithm incorporating fungal biomarkers and molecular tools for early and accurate diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia, aspergillosis, candidemia, and endemic mycoses; lack of a standardized molecular approach to identify fungal pathogens directly in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues; lack of robust databases to enhance mold identification with matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry; suboptimal diagnostic approaches for mold blood cultures, tissue culture processing for Mucorales, and fungal respiratory cultures for cystic fibrosis patients; inadequate capacity for fungal point-of-care testing to detect and identify new, emerging or underrecognized, rare, or uncommon fungal pathogens; and performance of antifungal susceptibility testing. In this commentary, the FDLC delineates the most pressing unmet diagnostic needs and provides expert opinion on how to fulfill them. Most importantly, the FDLC provides a robust laboratory network to tackle these diagnostic gaps and ultimately to improve and enhance the clinical laboratory's capability to rapidly and accurately diagnose fungal infections.

BackgroundAccurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution and public health level decision-making. The numbers of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests are rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance.ObjectiveThe IDSA’s goal was to develop 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 the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings and highlight important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing space.MethodsIDSA 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.ResultsThe panel agreed on 17 diagnostic recommendations.ConclusionsUniversal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered 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 recommended for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation timing. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control interim guidelines for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing list the patient self-collected anterior nares swab (ANS) as an acceptable alternative to the standard health care provider (HCP)

To examine innate immune responses in early SARS-CoV-2 infection that may change clinical outcomes, we compared nasopharyngeal swab data from 20 virus-positive and 20 virus-negative individuals. Multiple innate immune-related and ACE-2 transcripts increased with infection and were strongly associated with increasing viral load. We found widespread discrepancies between transcription and translation. Interferon proteins were unchanged or decreased in infected samples suggesting virally-induced shut-off of host anti-viral protein responses. However, IP-10 and several interferon-stimulated gene proteins increased with viral load. Older age was associated with modifications of some effects. Our findings may characterize the disrupted immune landscape of early disease.

Uptake of existing diagnostics to identify infections more accurately could minimize unnecessary antibiotic use and decrease the growing threat of antibiotic resistance. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (PACCARB) agree that, to improve uptake of existing diagnostics, healthcare providers, health systems, and payors all need better clinical and economic outcomes data to support use of diagnostic tests over empiric use of antibiotics, providers need better tools and education about diagnostic tests, and diagnostics developers need federal funding in the absence of a viable diagnostics market. Recommendations from PACCARB and the IDSA are amplified. Incentives for—and challenges to—diagnostics research, development, and uptake are summarized. Advocacy opportunities are given for infectious disease professionals to join the fight against antimicrobial resistance.

BackgroundThe availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations, and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well defined. 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 best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA.ObjectiveIDSA’s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development, and the selection of convalescent plasma donors.MethodsA 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 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations.ResultsThe panel agreed on 8 diagnostic recommendations.ConclusionsInformation on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests is rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified 3 potential indications for serologic testing, including (1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and ≥2 weeks have passed since symptom onset, (2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and (3) conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate. For the most updated version of these guidelines, please go to https://www.idsociety.org/covid19guidelines.

Background The availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well-defined. 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 best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. Objective IDSA’s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development and the selection of convalescent plasma donors. 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 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 agreed on eight diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Information on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests are rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified three potential indications for serologic testing including: 1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and at least two weeks have passed since symptom onset; 2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children; and 3) for conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate.

Background Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are life-threatening opportunistic infections that occur in immunocompromised or critically ill people. Early detection and treatment of IFIs is essential to reduce morbidity and mortality in these populations. (1→3)-β-D-glucan (BDG) is a component of the fungal cell wall that can be detected in the serum of infected individuals. The serum BDG test is a way to quickly detect these infections and initiate treatment before they become life-threatening. Five different versions of the BDG test are commercially available: Fungitell, Glucatell, Wako, Fungitec-G, and Dynamiker Fungus. Objectives To compare the diagnostic accuracy of commercially available tests for serum BDG to detect selected invasive fungal infections (IFIs) among immunocompromised or critically ill people. Search methods We searched MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid) up to 26 June 2019. We used SCOPUS to perform a forward and backward citation search of relevant articles. We placed no restriction on language or study design. Selection criteria We included all references published on or after 1995, which is when the first commercial BDG assays became available. We considered published, peer-reviewed studies on the diagnostic test accuracy of BDG for diagnosis of fungal infections in immunocompromised people or people in intensive care that used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria or equivalent as a reference standard. We considered all study designs (case-control, prospective consecutive cohort, and retrospective cohort studies). We excluded case studies and studies with fewer than ten participants. We also excluded animal and laboratory studies. We excluded meeting abstracts because they provided insufficient information. Data collection and analysis We followed the standard procedures outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews. Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and performed a quality assessment for each study. For each study, we created a 2 × 2 matrix and calculated sensitivity and specificity, as well as a 95% confidence interval (CI). We evaluated the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy-Revised (QUADAS-2). We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to considerable variation between studies, with the exception of Candida, so we have provided descriptive statistics such as receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) and forest plots by test brand to show variation in study results. Main results We included in the review 49 studies with a total of 6244 participants. About half of these studies (24/49; 49%) were conducted with people who had cancer or hematologic malignancies. Most studies (36/49; 73%) focused on the Fungitell BDG test. This was followed by Glucatell (5 studies; 10%), Wako (3 studies; 6%), Fungitec-G (3 studies; 6%), and Dynamiker (2 studies; 4%). About three-quarters of studies (79%) utilized either a prospective or a retrospective consecutive study design; the remainder used a case-control design. Based on the manufacturer's recommended cut-off levels for the Fungitell test, sensitivity ranged from 27% to 100%, and specificity from 0% to 100%. For the Glucatell assay, sensitivity ranged from 50% to 92%, and specificity ranged from 41% to 94%. Limited studies have used the Dynamiker, Wako, and Fungitec-G assays, but individual sensitivities and specificities ranged from 50% to 88%, and from 60% to 100%, respectively. Results show considerable differences between studies, even by manufacturer, which prevented a formal meta-analysis. Most studies (32/49; 65%) had no reported high risk of bias in any of the QUADAS-2 domains. The QUADAS-2 domains that had higher risk of bias included participant selection and flow and timing. Authors' conclusions We noted considerable heterogeneity between studies, and these differences precluded a formal meta-analysis. Because of wide variation in the results, it is not possible to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the BDG test in specific settings. Future studies estimating the accuracy of BDG tests should be linked to the way the test is used in clinical practice and should clearly describe the sampling protocol and the relationship of time of testing to time of diagnosis.

We prospectively compared healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) to self-collected anterior nasal swabs (ANS) and straight saliva for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in 354 patients. The positive percent agreement between NPS and ANS or saliva was 86.3% (95% CI: 76.7-92.9) and 93.8% (95% CI: 86.0-97.9), respectively. Negative percent agreement was 99.6% (95% CI: 98-100) for NPS vs. ANS and 97.8% (95% CI: 95.3 – 99.2) for NPS vs. saliva. NPS (n=80) and saliva (n=81) detected more cases than ANS (n=70), but no single specimen type detected all SARS-CoV2 infections.

We prospectively compared health care worker-collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) to self-collected anterior nasal swabs (ANS) and straight saliva for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 354 patients. The percent positive agreement between NPS and ANS or saliva was 86.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.7 to 92.9%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 86.0 to 97.9%), respectively. The percent negative agreement was 99.6% (95% CI, 98.0 to 100.0%) for NPS versus ANS and 97.8% (95% CI, 95.3 to 99., We prospectively compared health care worker-collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) to self-collected anterior nasal swabs (ANS) and straight saliva for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 354 patients. The percent positive agreement between NPS and ANS or saliva was 86.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.7 to 92.9%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 86.0 to 97.9%), respectively. The percent negative agreement was 99.6% (95% CI, 98.0 to 100.0%) for NPS versus ANS and 97.8% (95% CI, 95.3 to 99.2%) for NPS versus saliva. More cases were detected by the use of NPS (n = 80) and saliva (n = 81) than by the use of ANS (n = 70), but no single specimen type detected all severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections.

The clinical signs and symptoms of acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are not pathogen specific. Highly sensitive and specific nucleic acid amplification tests have become the diagnostic reference standard for viruses, and translation of bacterial assays from basic research to routine clinical practice represents an exciting advance in respiratory medicine. Most recently, molecular diagnostics have played an essential role in the global health response to the novel coronavirus pandemic. How best to use newer molecular tests for RTI in combination with clinical judgment and traditional methods can be bewildering given the plethora of available assays and rapidly evolving technologies. Here, we summarize the current state of the art with respect to the diagnosis of viral and bacterial RTIs, provide a practical framework for diagnostic decision making using selected patient-centered vignettes, and make recommendations for future studies to advance the field., Molecular assays have revolutionized the diagnosis of acute respiratory tract infections. However, many unanswered questions about the optimal use and cost-effectiveness of these tests remain. Additional prospective diagnostic studies are needed to measure impact on medical decision making and clinical outcomes.

Influenza viruses infect millions of people each year, leading to several hundred thousand hospitalizations and thousands of deaths annually in the US. Early antiviral therapy reduces illness duration, complications, and mortality associated with influenza. Yet, antivirals are consistently used at a suboptimal rate. Patients with positive influenza diagnostic testing results are more likely to receive antiviral therapy and less likely to be prescribed unnecessary antibiotics. Thus, access to reliable influenza testing in both ambulatory and inpatient settings is critical to facilitate both optimal patient outcomes and antimicrobial stewardship. Recently, the first point-of-care (POC)7 molecular diagnostic test was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the detection of influenza. At the same time, concerns about the performance of commonly used rapid antigen tests, particularly the test sensitivity, led to modified regulatory requirements for these devices. The landscape of influenza diagnostics is rapidly evolving, and clinical laboratorians are certain to face pressure regarding new testing modalities. In this article, 5 experts that span the continuum of influenza diagnosis from the clinical laboratory to industry to public health and regulatory agencies discuss recent advances and ongoing challenges in influenza diagnostics. During influenza season, how does rapid influenza diagnostic testing affect clinical management and clinical workflows? Neil Anderson: During influenza season, most infected individuals will present to 1 of 2 places: an outpatient clinic or an emergency department (ED). These initial interactions with the healthcare system are often very brief. During this short amount of time, clinicians must make many decisions. Should the patient be given antibiotics, antivirals, or neither? Should the patient be admitted? Given the overlap in symptomatology of different respiratory pathogens, these questions can be very difficult to answer on presentation alone. In this situation, a rapid influenza diagnostic test is an essential component of patient management …

Patient care and prevention of disease outbreaks rely heavily on the performance of diagnostic tests. These tests are typically carried out in serum, urine, and other complex sample matrices, but are often plagued by a number of matrix effects such as nonspecific adsorption and complexation with circulating proteins. This paper demonstrates the importance of sample pretreatment to overcome matrix effects, enabling the low-level detection of a disease marker for tuberculosis (TB). The impact of pretreatment is illustrated by detecting a cell wall component unique to mycobacteria, lipoarabinomannan (LAM). LAM is a major virulence factor in the infectious pathology of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) and has been successfully detected in the body fluids of TB-infected individuals; however, its clinical sensitivity - identifying patients with active infection - remains problematic. This and the companion paper show that the detection of LAM in an immunoassay is plagued by its complexation with proteins and other components in serum. Herein, we present the procedures and results from an investigation of several different pretreatment schemes designed to disrupt complexation and thereby improve detection. These sample pretreatment studies, aimed at determining the optimal conditions for complex disruption, were carried out by using a LAM simulant derived from the nonpathogenic M. smegmatis, a mycobacterium often used as a model for Mtb. We have found that a perchloric acid-based pretreatment step improves the ability to detect this simulant by ∼1500× with respect to that in untreated serum. This paper describes the approach to pretreatment, how pretreatment improves the detection of the LAM simulant in human serum, and the results from a preliminary investigation to identify possible contributors to complexation by fractionating serum according to molecular weight. The companion paper applies this pretreatment approach to assays of TB patient samples.

The ability to detect tuberculosis (TB) continues to be a global health care priority. This paper describes the development and preliminary assessment of the clinical accuracy of a heterogeneous immunoassay that integrates a serum pretreatment process with readout by surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) for the low-level detection of mannose-capped lipoarabinomannan (ManLAM). ManLAM is a major virulence factor in the infectious pathology of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) that has been found in the serum and other body fluids of infected patients. The effectiveness of ManLAM as a TB diagnostic marker, however, remains unproven for reasons not yet well understood. As reported herein, we have found that (1) ManLAM complexes with proteins and possibly other components in serum; (2) these complexes have a strongly detrimental impact on the ability to detect ManLAM using an immunoassay; (3) a simple pretreatment step can disrupt this complexation; and (4) disruption by pretreatment improves detection by 250×. We also describe the results from a preliminary assessment on the utility of serum pretreatment by running immunoassays on archived specimens from 24 TB-positive patients and 10 healthy controls. ManLAM was measurable in 21 of the 24 TB-positive specimens, but not in any of the 10 control specimens. These findings, albeit for a very small specimen set, translate to a clinical sensitivity of 87.5% and a clinical specificity of 100%. Together, these results both provide much needed evidence for the clinical utility of ManLAM as a TB marker, and demonstrate the potential utility of our overall approach to serve as a new strategy for the development of diagnostic tests for this disease.

The infectious complications of transplantation can have devastating consequences for patients. Early and accurate diagnosis is essential to good outcomes. This review describes recent advances in pathogen-directed diagnostic testing and discusses the role of new methods for transplant infectious diseases. Several molecular assays have been introduced into clinical practice in recent years. When the results of rapid testing are linked to patient-specific interventions, improved outcomes can be realized. Syndromic testing along with metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) represents novel approaches to infection diagnosis. However, the optimal use of these tests for transplant patients along with an overall assessment of cost-effectiveness demands further study. Molecular diagnostics are revolutionizing transplant care. Clinicians need to be aware of the current diagnostic landscape and have a working knowledge of the nuances related to test performance, result interpretation, and cost.

Mucormycosis outbreaks have been linked to contaminated linen. We performed fungal cultures on freshly-laundered linens at 15 transplant and cancer hospitals. At 33% of hospitals, the linens were visibly unclean. At 20%, Mucorales were recovered from >10% of linens. Studies are needed to understand the clinical significance of our findings.

Background Invasive fungal infection (IFI) is a life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) that is also associated with excess healthcare costs. Current approaches include universal antifungal prophylaxis, preemptive therapy based on biomarker surveillance, and empiric treatment initiated in response to clinical signs/symptoms. However, no study has directly compared the cost-effectiveness of these treatment strategies for an allogeneic HSCT patient population. Methods We developed a state transition model to study the impact of treatment strategies on outcomes associated with IFIs in the first 100 days following myeloablative allogeneic HSCT. We compared three treatment strategies: empiric voriconazole, preemptive voriconazole (200 mg), or prophylactic posaconazole (300 mg) for the management of IFIs. Preemptive treatment was guided by scheduled laboratory surveillance with galactomannan (GM) testing. Endpoints were cost and survival at 100 days post-HSCT. Results Empiric treatment was the least costly ($147 482) and was equally effective (85.2% survival at 100 days) as the preemptive treatment strategies. Preemptive treatments were slightly more costly than empiric treatment (GM cutoff ≥ 1.0 $147 910 and GM cutoff ≥ 0.5 $148 108). Preemptive therapy with GM cutoff ≥ 1.0 reduced anti-mold therapy by 5% when compared to empiric therapy. Posaconazole prophylaxis was the most effective (86.6% survival at 100 days) and costly ($152 240) treatment strategy with a cost of $352 415 per life saved when compared to empiric therapy. Conclusions One preemptive treatment strategy reduced overall anti-mold drug exposure but did not reduce overall costs. Prevention of IFI using posaconazole prophylaxis was the most effective treatment strategy and may be cost-effective, depending upon the willingness to pay per life saved.

In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed to regulate laboratory-developed tests (LDTs)-diagnostics designed, manufactured, and used within a single laboratory. The Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Society for Microbiology, and the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology recognize that the FDA is committed to protecting patients. However, our societies are concerned that the proposed regulations will limit access to testing and negatively impact infectious diseases (ID) LDTs. In this joint commentary, our societies discuss why LDTs are critical for ID patient care, hospital infection control, and public health responses. We also highlight how the FDA's proposed regulation of LDTs could impair patient access to life-saving tests and stifle innovation in ID diagnostics. Finally, our societies make specific recommendations for the FDA's consideration to reduce the burden of the proposed new rules on clinical laboratories and protect patients' access to state-of-the art, quality LDTs.

Fungal diagnostics that utilize antibody, antigen or nucleic acid detection offer several advantages that supplement traditional culture-based methods. As a group, nonculture assays can help identify patients with invasive fungal infection (IFI) sooner than is possible with culture, are often more sensitive, and can be used to guide early interventions. Challenges associated with these techniques include the possibility for contamination or cross-reactivity as well as the potential for false negative tests. This review summarized the test characteristics and clinical utility of nonculture-based laboratory methods.

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is used to treat an increasing number of conditions. The anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of IVIG can be life-saving; however, recent administration may complicate evaluation for infection. To assess the impact of IVIG therapy on a variety of common viral, bacterial, fungal, and parasitic serologies we prospectively evaluated serologic changes pre- and post-IVIG infusion in 7 participants. The number of new antibody detections ranging from 2 to 5. New detections included positivity for Epstein-Barr virus early D antigen, herpes simplex virus, West Nile virus, cytomegalovirus, and the endemic mycoses Histoplasma and Coccidioides. The greatest number of newly positive serologies was observed in subjects receiving cumulative doses of IVIG in excess of 100 g. Our results illustrate the difficulty in serologic interpretation following IVIG therapy and suggest a dose-response to new positive results. These findings may be a helpful resource to clinicians facing similar circumstances.

Implementation of Biofire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Multiplex PCR panel (BCID) at a cancer hospital was associated with reduced time to appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Additional reductions were not observed when BCID was coupled with antimicrobial stewardship intervention.

Rapid diagnostic testing has improved clinical care of patients with infectious syndromes when combined with antimicrobial stewardship. The authors review the current data on antimicrobial stewardship and rapid diagnostic testing in bloodstream, respiratory tract, and gastrointestinal tract infections. Evidence for the potential benefit of rapid tests in bloodstream infections seems strong, respiratory tract infections mixed, and gastrointestinal tract infections still evolving. The authors also review future directions in rapid diagnostic testing and suggest areas of focus for antimicrobial stewardship efforts.

We evaluated the effects of rifampin coadministration and MDR1 single nucleotide polymorphisms on the disposition of daptomycin in twelve healthy adults. There were no significant changes from baseline in the clearance (0.53 versus 0.55 liters/h, P = 1.00), volume of distribution (7.0 versus 7.2 liter, P = 0.62), or half-life (9.7 versus 9.6 h, P = 0.89) of daptomycin after exposure to rifampin.

This multicenter study was designed to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of the Vitek MS v3.0 matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry system for identification of Mycobacterium and Nocardia species compared to DNA sequencing. A total of 963 clinical isolates representing 51 taxa were evaluated. In all, 663 isolates were correctly identified to the species level (69%), with another 231 (24%) correctly identified to the complex or group level. Fifty-five isolates (6%) could not be identified despite repeat testing. All of the tuberculous mycobacteria (45/45; 100%) and most of the nontuberculous mycobacteria (569/606; 94%) were correctly identified at least to the group or complex level. However, not all species or subspecies within the M. tuberculosis , M. abscessus , and M. avium complexes and within the M. fortuitum and M. mucogenicum groups could be differentiated. Among the 312 Nocardia isolates tested, 236 (76%) were correctly identified to the species level, with an additional 44 (14%) correctly identified to the complex level. Species within the N. nova and N. transvalensis complexes could not always be differentiated. Eleven percent of the isolates (103/963) underwent repeat testing in order to get a final result. Identification of a representative set of Mycobacterium and Nocardia species was highly reproducible, with 297 of 300 (99%) replicates correctly identified using multiple kit lots, instruments, analysts, and sites. These findings demonstrate that the system is robust and has utility for the routine identification of mycobacteria and Nocardia in clinical practice.

Invasive fungal infections are an important cause of morbidity and mortality affecting primarily immunocompromised patients. While fungal identification to the species level is critical to providing appropriate therapy, it can be slow and laborious and often relies on subjective morphological criteria. The use of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry has the potential to speed up and improve the accuracy of identification. In this multicenter study, we evaluated the accuracy of the Vitek MS v3.0 system in identifying 1,601 clinical mold isolates compared to identification by DNA sequence analysis and supported by morphological and phenotypic testing. Among the 1,519 isolates representing organisms in the v3.0 database, 91% ( n = 1,387) were correctly identified to the species level. An additional 27 isolates (2%) were correctly identified to the genus level. Fifteen isolates were incorrectly identified, due to either a single incorrect identification ( n = 13) or multiple identifications from different genera ( n = 2). In those cases, when a single identification was provided that was not correct, the misidentification was within the same genus. The Vitek MS v3.0 was unable to identify 91 (6%) isolates, despite repeat testing. These isolates were distributed among all the genera. When considering all isolates tested, even those that were not represented in the database, the Vitek MS v3.0 provided a single correct identification 98% of the time. These findings demonstrate that the Vitek MS v3.0 system is highly accurate for the identification of common molds encountered in the clinical mycology laboratory.

Candida auris has emerged globally as a multidrug-resistant health care-associated fungal pathogen. Recent reports highlight ongoing challenges due to organism misidentification, high rates of antifungal drug resistance, and significant patient mortality. The predilection for transmission within and between health care facilities possibly promoted by virulence factors that facilitate skin colonization and environmental persistence is unique among Candida species. This minireview details the global emergence of C. auris and discusses issues relevant to clinical microbiology laboratories, hospital infection control, and antimicrobial stewardship efforts.

Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in immunocompromised patients. Prompt antifungal therapy is essential for favorable outcomes, but clinical signs and symptoms are nonspecific and mycologic confirmation is often not possible. Radiographic testing is an important adjunct to the diagnosis and management of IFDs. Early imaging has been associated with improved survival, particularly in neutropenic patients with fungal pneumonia or acute invasive fungal sinusitis. This review summarizes common radiologic appearances of IFDs of the lung, sinus, and brain. The advantages and limitations of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging are discussed as are recent developments in nuclear medicine and proton MR spectroscopy technology.

Macrolide resistance has been linked to the presence of a functional erythromycin ribosomal methylase ( erm ) gene in most species of pathogenic rapidly growing mycobacteria (RGM). For these Mycobacterium isolates, extended incubation in clarithromycin is necessary to determine macrolide susceptibility. In contrast, the absence of a detectable erm gene in isolates of M. chelonae , M. senegalense , and M. peregrinum and a nonfunctional erm gene in M. abscessus subsp. massiliense and 15% to 20% of M. abscessus subsp. abscessus isolates renders these species intrinsically macrolide susceptible. Not all RGM species have been screened for the presence of an erm gene, including the Mycobacterium mucogenicum group ( M. mucogenicum , M. phocaicum , and M. aubagnense ) and Mycobacterium immunogenum . A total of 356 isolates of these two pathogenic RGM taxa from two reference laboratories (A.R.U.P. Reference Laboratories and the Mycobacteria/Nocardia Laboratory at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler) underwent clarithromycin susceptibility testing with readings at 3 to 5 days and 14 days. Only 13 of the 356 isolates had resistant clarithromycin MICs at initial extended MIC readings, and repeat values on all available isolates were ≤2 μg/ml. These studies suggest that these two additional RGM groups do not harbor functional erm genes and, like M. chelonae , do not require extended clarithromycin susceptibility testing. We propose to the Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute that isolates belonging to these above-mentioned six rapidly growing mycobacterial groups based on molecular identification with no known functional erm genes undergo only 3 to 5 days of susceptibility testing (to exclude mutational resistance).

We report the first case of Trypanosoma cruzi-associated retinitis diagnosed using 28s ribosomal DNA sequencing. The case highlights the utility of broad-range molecular diagnostics for detecting rare and unsuspected ocular pathogens. Ocular involvement in Chagas disease is also discussed.