Theel, Elitza S.

Background. Identification and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) mitigate the risk of tuberculosis (TB) reactivation after transplantation. TB reactivation is higher in those with indeterminate QuantiFERON (QFT) than those with negative results. Management of indeterminate QFT results in the pretransplant period remains unclear. Methods. We conducted a retrospective study of solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, 18 y and older, who were screened with QFT assay pretransplantation at Mayo Clinic between January 2010 and June 2023. We examined the frequency of indeterminate QFT results, results of repeat LTBI screening, treatment decisions, and rate of posttransplant TB infection. Results. Of 13 008 patients screened for LTBI before SOT, 736 (6%) patients had indeterminate QFT results. Among these, 247 (34%) underwent a second LTBI screening test, and 39 (5%) received LTBI treatment. Among 247 patients with a repeat LTBI screening test, 185 (75%), 48 (19%), and 14 (6%) were tested by QFT, T-SPOT.TB, or TST, respectively. The repeat QFT remained indeterminate in 160 (86%) patients, whereas all T-SPOT.TB results were negative. Posttransplant TB infection occurred in 2 (0.3%) patients; neither had a second TB screening test pretransplant nor received LTBI treatment. Conclusions. In SOT recipients with indeterminate QFT results at pretransplant evaluation, opting for T-SPOT.TB as a second test may be preferable over repeat QFT. TB infection after transplantation in patients with a pretransplant indeterminate QFT result was rare. Patient management and LTBI treatment in those with indeterminate QFT pretransplant should account for epidemiological risk factors, and shared decision-making is recommended.

Background. Solid organ transplant (SOT) candidates should be screened and treated for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) to prevent tuberculosis (TB) reactivation after transplantation. We aimed to assess the steps from positive QuantiFERON (QFT) through LTBI treatment (cascade of care) in the SOT population. Methods. We conducted a retrospective study of SOT recipients older than 18 y with a positive QFT during pretransplant evaluation at the Mayo Clinic from January 2010 to June 2023. We analyzed each cascade step to determine associated drop-out factors for LTBI management. Results. Of 629 patients who had positive QFT results, 587 (93%) were evaluated by an infectious disease (ID) specialist, 478 (76%) were recommended to start LTBI treatment, 473 (75%) initiated LTBI treatment, and 457 (73%) completed LTBI treatment. LTBI treatment was not recommended in 109 patients evaluated by infectious disease, most of whom had previously received either LTBI (n = 72) or TB (n = 14) treatment. LTBI treatment was initiated before or after transplantation for 45% and 55% of patients, respectively. Isoniazid monotherapy was the most common regimen (92%), and adverse events were rare (7%). Seven patients developed active TB infection posttransplantation under various circumstances (3 without LTBI treatment, 1 during LTBI treatment, and 3 after completing LTBI treatment). Conclusions. Our findings demonstrate the variability of LTBI management in SOT recipients with positive QFT. When recommended, most patients completed LTBI treatment successfully. Nonetheless, active TB was noted regardless of whether patients received LTBI treatment. This study highlights the importance of optimizing LTBI management in this population.

Abstract Background Identifying and treating patients with acute Q fever who are at an increased risk of progressing to persistent disease is crucial for preventing future complications. In this study, we share our decade-long clinical experience with acute Q fever, highlighting the challenges that clinicians encounter from making an initial diagnosis and performing risk stratification to determining the appropriate prophylaxis regimen and duration. Methods We retrieved records of adult Mayo Clinic patients (≥18 years) with positive Coxiella burnetii serology results between 1 January 2012 and 31 March 2022. Patients with Q fever anti–phase II immunoglobulin G ≥1:256 by indirect immunofluorescence were further analyzed. Results Thirty-one patients were included. Their median age was 58 years (IQR, 50–64), and the majority were men (84%). Acute hepatitis (29%), flu-like illness (25.8%), and pneumonia (16%) were the most common presentations. Thirteen patients (42%) received antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent disease progression, with significant variation in the indications and duration across physicians. The combination of doxycycline and hydroxychloroquine was the preferred regimen. Prophylaxis was administered for a median 333 days (IQR, 168–414). Four patients (13%) progressed to Q fever native valve infective endocarditis, with elevated anticardiolipin immunoglobulin G levels being the sole risk factor in 2 cases. The small sample size precluded drawing conclusions on the impact of prophylaxis in preventing disease progression. Conclusions Management of acute Q fever is complicated by the lack of comprehensive clinical guidelines leading to varied clinical practices. There is a critical need for randomized trials to establish robust evidence-based protocols for management.

Abstract Background In 2021, the state of Arizona experienced the largest focal outbreak of West Nile virus (WNV) in US history. Timely and accurate diagnostic testing remains a challenge for WNV due to transient viremia and limited immunoassay specificity. Recent studies have identified whole blood (WB) and urine as more sensitive specimen types for the detection of WNV RNA. Methods We evaluated ordering practices, test performance, and patient characteristics of probable and confirmed cases. In total, we identified 190 probable and proven cases, including 127 patients (66.8%) with neuroinvasive disease. Results Among all cases, only 29.5% had WNV polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing ordered on WB, of which 80.3% resulted as positive, including 7 cases in which WNV serologic testing was negative and 5 cases for which serologic testing was not ordered. In comparison, only 23.7% of cases that had cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) PCR ordered had a positive result, including 3 cases that were negative by PCR on WB. In contrast, WNV PCR on WB detected 12 neuroinvasive cases that were CSF PCR negative. WNV PCR testing in urine was only ordered on 2 patients, both of whom were positive. Crossing cycle threshold (Ct) values were not significantly different between WB and CSF specimen types, nor was there a correlation between Ct value and days from symptom onset at the time of sample collection; all specimen types and time points had Ct values, with 98% above 30. WB was positive by WNV PCR in several patients for >7 days (range, 7–25 days) after symptom onset, as was the CSF PCR. Conclusions Taken together, these findings indicate that WNV PCR testing on WB may be the best initial test for timely diagnosis of WNV infection, irrespective of clinical manifestation; however, if negative in patients with suspected neuroinvasive disease, WNV PCR testing on CSF should be ordered.

ABSTRACT Although severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and hospitalization associated with COVID-19 are generally preventable among healthy vaccine recipients, patients with immunosuppression have poor immunogenic responses to COVID-19 vaccines and remain at high risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and hospitalization. In addition, monoclonal antibody therapy is limited by the emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants that have serially escaped neutralization. In this context, there is interest in understanding the clinical benefit associated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma collected from persons who have been both naturally infected with SARS-CoV-2 and vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 (“vax-plasma”). Thus, we report the clinical outcome of 386 immunocompromised outpatients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and who received contemporary COVID-19-specific therapeutics (standard-of-care group) and a subgroup who also received concomitant treatment with very high titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma (vax-plasma group) with a specific focus on hospitalization rates. The overall hospitalization rate was 2.2% (5 of 225 patients) in the vax-plasma group and 6.2% (10 of 161 patients) in the standard-of-care group, which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 65% ( P = 0.046). Evidence of efficacy in nonvaccinated patients cannot be inferred from these data because 94% (361 of 386 patients) of patients were vaccinated. In vaccinated patients with immunosuppression and COVID-19, the addition of vax-plasma or very high titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma to COVID-19-specific therapies reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. IMPORTANCE As SARS-CoV-2 evolves, new variants of concern (VOCs) have emerged that evade available anti-spike monoclonal antibodies, particularly among immunosuppressed patients. However, high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma continues to be effective against VOCs because of its broad-spectrum immunomodulatory properties. Thus, we report clinical outcomes of 386 immunocompromised outpatients who were treated with COVID-19-specific therapeutics and a subgroup also treated with vaccine-boosted convalescent plasma. We found that the administration of vaccine-boosted convalescent plasma was associated with a significantly decreased incidence of hospitalization among immunocompromised COVID-19 outpatients. Our data add to the contemporary data providing evidence to support the clinical utility of high-titer convalescent plasma as antibody replacement therapy in immunocompromised patients.

SUMMARY The emergence and worldwide dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 required both urgent development of new diagnostic tests and expansion of diagnostic testing capacity on an unprecedented scale. The rapid evolution of technologies that allowed testing to move out of traditional laboratories and into point-of-care testing centers and the home transformed the diagnostic landscape. Four years later, with the end of the formal public health emergency but continued global circulation of the virus, it is important to take a fresh look at available SARS-CoV-2 testing technologies and consider how they should be used going forward. This review considers current use case scenarios for SARS-CoV-2 antigen, nucleic acid amplification, and immunologic tests, incorporating the latest evidence for analytical/clinical performance characteristics and advantages/limitations for each test type to inform current debates about how tests should or should not be used.

Abstract We studied patients diagnosed with aspergillosis based on positive bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) Aspergillus galactomannan (GM) who had follow-up BAL sampling within 180 days. GM trend and clinical outcome were concordant in only 60% (30/50). While useful for the initial diagnosis, BAL GM trending does not always correlate with treatment response.

Abstract The critical nature of the microbiology laboratory in infectious disease diagnosis calls for a close, positive working relationship between the physician and the microbiologists who provide enormous value to the healthcare team. This document, developed by experts in both adult and pediatric laboratory and clinical medicine, provides information on which tests are valuable and in which contexts, and on tests that add little or no value for diagnostic decisions. Sections are divided into anatomic systems, including Bloodstream Infections and Infections of the Cardiovascular System, Central Nervous System Infections, Ocular Infections, Soft Tissue Infections of the Head and Neck, Upper Respiratory Infections, Lower Respiratory Tract Infections, Infections of the Gastrointestinal Tract, Intraabdominal Infections, Bone and Joint Infections, Urinary Tract Infections, Genital Infections, and Skin and Soft Tissue Infections; or into etiologic agent groups, including arboviral Infections, Viral Syndromes, and Blood and Tissue Parasite Infections. Each section contains introductory concepts, a summary of key points, and detailed tables that list suspected agents; the most reliable tests to order; the samples (and volumes) to collect in order of preference; specimen transport devices, procedures, times, and temperatures; and detailed notes on specific issues regarding the test methods, such as when tests are likely to require a specialized laboratory or have prolonged turnaround times. In addition, the pediatric needs of specimen management are also addressed. There is redundancy among the tables and sections, as many agents and assay choices overlap. The document is intended to serve as a reference to guide physicians in choosing tests that will aid them to diagnose infectious diseases in their patients.