In this IDSA policy paper, we review the current diagnostic landscape, including unmet needs and emerging technologies, and assess the challenges to the development and clinical integration of improved tests. To fulfill the promise of emerging diagnostics, IDSA presents recommendations that address a host of identified barriers. Achieving these goals will require the engagement and coordination of a number of stakeholders, including Congress, funding and regulatory bodies, public health agencies, the diagnostics industry, healthcare systems, professional societies, and individual clinicians.

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 Accurate 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. Objective The 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. Methods 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. Results The panel agreed on 17 diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Universal 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.

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 species. This minireview details the global emergence of and discusses issues relevant to clinical microbiology laboratories, hospital infection control, and antimicrobial stewardship efforts.

Background Accurate 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. Objective The IDSA’s goal was to develop an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assists 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. Methods 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. Results The panel agreed on 15 diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Universal 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 low 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 administration of immunosuppressive therapy. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

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-CoV-2 infections.

No abstract

To assess their utility for antifungal susceptibility testing in our clinical laboratory, the Etest and Sensititre methods were compared with the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M27-A2 reference broth microdilution method. Fluconazole (FL), itraconazole (I), voriconazole (V), posaconazole (P), flucytosine (FC), caspofungin (C), and amphotericin B (A) were tested with 212 Candida isolates. Reference MICs were determined after 48 h of incubation, and Etest and Sensititre MICs were determined after 24 h and 48 h of incubation. Overall, excellent essential agreement (EA) between the reference and test methods was observed for Etest (95%) and Sensititre (91%). Etest showed an >92% EA for MICs for all drugs tested; Sensititre showed a >92% EA for MICs for I, FC, A, and C but 82% for FL and 85% for V. The overall categorical agreement (CA) was 90% for Etest and 88% for Sensititre; minor errors accounted for the majority of all categorical errors for both systems. Categorical agreement was lowest for Candida glabrata and Candida tropicalis with both test systems. Etest and Sensititre provided better CA at 24 h compared to 48 h for C. glabrata; however, CA for C. glabrata was <80% for FL with both test systems despite MIC determination at 24 h. Agreement between technologists for both methods was >98% for each agent against all organisms tested. Overall, Etest and Sensititre methods compared favorably with the CLSI reference method for determining the susceptibility of Candida. However, further evaluation of their performance for determining the MICs of azoles, particularly for C. glabrata, is warranted.