No abstract

SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus responsible for a December 2019 outbreak in Wuhan, China, causes a syndrome characterized by fever, cough, and dyspnea progressing to acute respiratory distress syndrome (1).…

The BACTEC 9240 (Becton Dickinson Diagnostic Instrument Systems, Sparks, Md.) is a new continuousmonitoring blood culture system that uses internal, fluorescent-CO2 sensors. In a multicenter clinical trial, organism yield and times to detection with the prototype BACTEC 9240 system were compared with those of the BACTEC NR 660 system. Equal volumes of blood were inoculated into the bottles included in the study blood culture sets (aerobic and anaerobic 9240 and NR6A and NR7A bottles). A total of 9,391 aerobic and 8,951 anaerobic bottle pairs were inoculated with 9,801 blood specimens. A total of 587 clinically significant positive blood cultures and 415 cases of sepsis were studied. The standard 9240 aerobic bottle detected significantly more Staphylococcus aureus (P < 0.05), coagulase-negative staphylococci (P < 0.01), and total microorganisms (P < 0.001) than the NR6A bottle. The standard 9240 anaerobic bottle detected significantly more coagulase-negative staphylococci (P < 0.001), members of the family Enterobacteriaceae (P < 0.01), and total microorganisms (P < 0.001) than the NR7A bottle. A total of 420 positive cultures were detected in both systems; for 284, the time to detection was equivalent with both systems (within 12 h); for 123, the 9240 system was faster; and for 13, the NR 660 system was faster (P < 0.001). The average times to detection for the 9240 and the NR 660 systems were 20.2 and 27.5 h, respectively. Ninety-nine cultures were positive only in the 9240 system, and 68 cultures were positive only in the NR 660 system (P < 0.02). The 9240 system also detected significantly more episodes of bacteremia (P < 0.001). The false-positive rates for the 9240 and NR 660 systems were 2.2 and 2.3%, respectively. The false-negative rates for the two systems after 5 days of incubation did not differ significantly. The contamination rates for the 9240 and NR 660 systems were 1.9 and 1.5%, respectively (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the prototype 9240 system detected more clinically significant positive blood cultures and did so sooner than the NR 660 system, with the additional advantages of full automation, continuous monitoring, and noninvasive sampling.

Background Convalescent plasma therapy for COVID‐19 relies on transfer of anti‐viral antibody from donors to recipients via plasma transfusion. The relationship between clinical characteristics and antibody response to COVID‐19 is not well defined. We investigated predictors of convalescent antibody production and quantified recipient antibody response in a convalescent plasma therapy clinical trial. Methods Multivariable analysis of clinical and serological parameters in 103 confirmed COVID‐19 convalescent plasma donors 28 days or more following symptom resolution was performed. Mixed‐effects regression models with piecewise linear trends were used to characterize serial antibody responses in 10 convalescent plasma recipients with severe COVID‐19. Results Donor antibody titres ranged from 0 to 1 : 3892 (anti‐receptor binding domain (RBD)) and 0 to 1 : 3289 (anti‐spike). Higher anti‐RBD and anti‐spike titres were associated with increased age, hospitalization for COVID‐19, fever and absence of myalgia (all P < 0.05). Fatigue was significantly associated with anti‐RBD ( P = 0.03). In pairwise comparison amongst ABO blood types, AB donors had higher anti‐RBD and anti‐spike than O donors ( P < 0.05). No toxicity was associated with plasma transfusion. Non‐ECMO recipient anti‐RBD antibody titre increased on average 31% per day during the first three days post‐transfusion ( P = 0.01) and anti‐spike antibody titre by 40.3% ( P = 0.02). Conclusion Advanced age, fever, absence of myalgia, fatigue, blood type and hospitalization were associated with higher convalescent antibody titre to COVID‐19. Despite variability in donor titre, 80% of convalescent plasma recipients showed significant increase in antibody levels post‐transfusion. A more complete understanding of the dose‐response effect of plasma transfusion amongst COVID‐19‐infected patients is needed.

Reporting antibiotic susceptibility data in the form of a combination antibiogram may be useful to clinicians who are considering empirical antimicrobial therapy in the intensive care unit.

The Xpert Flu/RSV XC was compared to the FilmArray respiratory panel for detection of influenza (Flu) A, Flu B, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), using 128 nasopharyngeal swabs. Positive agreements were 100% for Flu A and RSV and 92.3% for Flu B. The Xpert may be useful in clinical situations when extensive testing is not required and may serve an important role in laboratories already performing broader respiratory panel testing.

Saliva has significant advantages as a test medium for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients, such as ease of collection, minimal requirement of supplies and trained personnel, and safety. Comprehensive validation in a large cohort of prospectively collected specimens with unknown SARS-CoV-2 status should be performed to evaluate the potential and limitations of saliva-based testing. We developed a saliva-based testing pipeline for detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids using real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) readouts, and measured samples from 137 outpatients tested at a curbside testing facility and 29 inpatients hospitalized for COVID-19. These measurements were compared to the nasal swab results for each patient performed by a certified microbiology laboratory. We found that our saliva testing positively detects 100% (RT-PCR) and 93.75% (ddPCR) of curbside patients that were identified as SARS-CoV-2 positive by the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) certified nasal swab testing assay. Quantification of viral loads by ddPCR revealed an extremely wide range, with 1 million-fold difference between individual patients. Our results demonstrate for both community screening and hospital settings that saliva testing reliability is on par with that of the nasal swabs in detecting infected cases, and has potential for higher sensitivity when combined with ddPCR in detecting low-abundance viral loads that evade traditional testing methods.

Comparison of turnaround time and time to oseltamivir discontinuation between two respiratory viral panel testing methodologies Respiratory infections contribute to many Emergency Department visits and hospitalizations, resulting in a high healthcare burden (Neuzil et al., 2003; Schull et al., 2005). Rapid detection of respiratory pathogens in patients presenting with symptoms of an upper respiratory tract infection is crucial for timely determination of optimal antimicrobial management, avoidance of unnecessary evaluations and implementation of transmission-reducing infection control practices. Rapid viral testing can also result in cost savings to the healthcare system through reduction in Emergency Department boarding time and decreased duration of empiric antiviral therapy (Schull et al., 2005). With increased emphasis on antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals to facilitate improved clinical and economic outcomes with antimicrobial therapy, the implementation of rapid diagnostics for laboratory identification of pathogens is of great interest (Bauer et al., 2014).