Back to Authors

Hanson, Kimberly

0000-0001-9790-277X

Mayo Clinic

Fungal Diagnostics Laboratory Consortium (FDLC), Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Citations 13

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019: Serologic Testing
Hayden, Mary K. , Mikati, Ibrahim K El , Hanson, Kimberly E. , Lee, Francesca , Loeb, Mark , Morgan, Daniel J., Ta’ani, Omar Al , Nazzal, Jamil, Iqneibi, Shahad , Falck–Ytter, Yngve , Bhimraj, Adarsh , Hanson, Kimberly , Englund, Janet A. , Humphries, Romney M. , Patel, Robin , Amarin, Justin Z. , Sultan, Shahnaz , Morgan, Rebecca L. , Murad, M. Hassan , Mustafa, Reem A

Clinical Infectious Diseases | March 15, 2024 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1093/cid/ciae121 Get It

Abstract Background The role of serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has evolved during the pandemic as seroprevalence in global populations has increased. The Infectious Diseases Society of America convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct updated best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is an update to the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Objective To develop evidence-based recommendations and identify unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, decisions related to vaccination and administration of monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma in immunocompromised patients, and identification of a serologic correlate of immunity. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature reviewed, identified, and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel recommends against serologic testing to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first 2 weeks after symptom onset (strong recommendations, low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing should not be used to provide evidence of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients with a high clinical suspicion and repeatedly negative nucleic acid amplification test results (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing may assist with the diagnosis of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). To seek evidence for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the panel suggests testing for immunoglobulin G (IgG), IgG/IgM, or total antibodies to nucleocapsid protein 3 to 5 weeks after symptom onset (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). In individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, the panel suggests against routine serologic testing given no demonstrated benefit to improving patient outcomes (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). The panel acknowledges further that a negative spike antibody test may be a useful metric to identify immunocompromised patients who are candidates for immune therapy. Conclusions The high seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 worldwide limits the utility of detecting anti-SARS CoV-2 antibody. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for diagnosis was graded as very low to low. Future studies should use serologic assays calibrated to a common reference standard.
Reply to Kidd et al., “Inconsistencies within the proposed framework for stabilizing fungal nomenclature risk further confusion”
Walsh, Thomas J. , Ahmed, Sarah , Alastruey‐Izquierdo, Ana , Alexander, Barbara D. , Arendrup, Maiken Cavling , Babady, Esther , Balada-Llasat, Joan-Miquel, Borman, Andrew M. , Colgrove, Robert C. , Cornely, Oliver A. , Fuller, Jeff, Gibas, Connie Fe C., Glasgow, Heather, Groll, Andreas H. , Haase, Gerhard , Hanson, Kimberly E. , Harrington, Amanda, Hayden, Randall T. , Hubka, Vít , Johnson, Kristie, Li, Ruoyu , Lanternier, Fanny , Lee, Francesca , Luethy, Paul M. , Kwon‐Chung, Kyung J., Palavecino, Elizabeth , Pancholi, Preeti , Pappas, Peter G. , Procop, Gary W. , Rhoads, Daniel D. , Riedel, Stefan , Stevens, Bryan S. , Sullivan, Kaede Ota, Vergidis, Paschalis , Roilides, Emmanuel , Seyedmousavi, Amir, Tao, Lili , Vicente, Vânia Aparecida , Vitale, Roxana G. , Wengenack, Nancy L. , Westblade, Lars F. , White, Lewis, Wojewoda, Christina , Babady, N. Esther , Seyedmousavi, Seyedmojtaba , de Hoog, Sybren , Walsh, Thomas J , Alastruey-Izquierdo, A , Arendrup, Maiken Cavling , Borman, Andrew , Groll, Andreas H , Hanson, Kimberly , Hayden, Randall T , Hoenigl, Martin , Kus, Julianne V , Meis, Jacques F , Leal, Sixto M , Lockhart, Shawn R. , Kwon-Chung, Kyung J , Nguyen, M Hong , Palavecino, Elizabeth , Pancholi, Preeti , Rhoads, Daniel D , Riedel, Stefan , Vergidis, Paschalis , Roilides, Emmanuel , Wengenack, Nancy L , Wiederhold, Nathan , White, Lewis , Wojewoda, Christina M , Zhang, Sean X , Cornely, Oliver A , Ahmed, Sarah A , Luethy, Paul , Bai, Feng‐Yan , Chowdhary, Anuradha , Clark, Andrew, Dingle, Tanis C. , Dufresne, Philippe J. , Gangneux, Jean‐Pierre , Gräser, Yvonne , Guillot, Jacques , Hawksworth, David L. , Hoenigl, Martin , Kus, Julianne V. , Lackner, Michaela , Leal, Sixto M. , Martin, Isabella W. , Meyer, Wieland , Ostrosky‐Zeichner, Luis , Redhead, Scott A. , Stevens, Bryan, Wang, Qiming , Wiederhold, Nathan P. , Zhang, Sean X.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology | March 5, 2024 | Volume: 62 | Issue: 4 | Pages: No page available

10.1128/jcm.01625-23 Get It

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (December 2023)
Hayden, Mary K. , Hanson, Kimberly E. , Lee, Mark J. , Loeb, Mark , Lee, Francesca , Mikati, Ibrahim K El , Iqneibi, Shahad , Alabed, Farouk, Mansour, Razan , Patel, Payal , Falck–Ytter, Yngve , Sultan, Shahnaz , Bhimraj, Adarsh , Hanson, Kimberly , Englund, Janet A. , Morgan, Daniel J. , Patel, Robin , Amarin, Justin Z. , Morgan, Rebecca L. , Murad, M. Hassan , Mustafa, Reem A

Clinical Infectious Diseases | December 19, 2023 | Volume: 78 | Issue: 7 | Pages: e385-e415

10.1093/cid/ciad646 Get It

Abstract Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and for identifying asymptomatic carriage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The number of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests continues to increase as does the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed 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 nuances of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlight important unmet research needs related to COVID-19 diagnostic testing. 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. The panel agreed on 12 diagnostic recommendations. Access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention, and the public health response to COVID-19 infection. Information on the clinical performance of available tests continues to grow, but the quality of evidence of the current literature to support this updated molecular diagnostic guideline remains 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 suggested for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions. Evidence in support of rapid testing and testing of upper respiratory specimens other than nasopharyngeal swabs, which offer logistical advantages, is sufficient to warrant conditional recommendations in favor of these approaches.
A conceptual framework for nomenclatural stability and validity of medically important fungi: a proposed global consensus guideline for fungal name changes supported by ABP, ASM, CLSI, ECMM, ESCMID-EFISG, EUCAST-AFST, FDLC, IDSA, ISHAM, MMSA, and MSGERC
Walsh, Thomas J. , Ahmed, Sarah , Alastruey‐Izquierdo, Ana , Alexander, Barbara D. , Arendrup, Maiken Cavling , Babady, Esther , Balada-Llasat, Joan-Miquel, Borman, Andrew M. , Colgrove, Robert C. , Cornely, Oliver A. , Fuller, Jeff, Gibas, Connie Fe C., Glasgow, Heather, Gräser, Yvonne , Groll, Andreas H. , Haase, Gerhard , Hanson, Kimberly E. , Harrington, Amanda, Hayden, Randall T. , Hubka, Vít , Johnson, Kristie, Li, Ruoyu , Lanternier, Fanny , Leal, Sixto M. , Lee, Francesca , Luethy, Paul M. , Kwon‐Chung, Kyung J., Palavecino, Elizabeth , Pancholi, Preeti , Pappas, Peter G. , Procop, Gary W. , Rhoads, Daniel D. , Riedel, Stefan , Stevens, Bryan S. , Sullivan, Kaede Ota, Vergidis, Paschalis , Roilides, Emmanuel , Seyedmousavi, Amir, Tao, Lili , Vicente, Vânia Aparecida , Vitale, Roxana G. , Wengenack, Nancy L. , Westblade, Lars F. , Wiederhold, Nathan P. , White, Lewis, Wojewoda, Christina , Babady, N. Esther , Seyedmousavi, Seyedmojtaba , de Hoog, Sybren , Walsh, Thomas J , Ahmed, Sarah A , Alastruey-Izquierdo, A , Arendrup, Maiken Cavling , Borman, Andrew , Groll, Andreas H , Hanson, Kimberly , Hayden, Randall T , Hoenigl, Martin , Kus, Julianne V , Meis, Jacques F , Leal, Sixto M , Lockhart, Shawn R. , Luethy, Paul , Kwon-Chung, Kyung J , Nguyen, M Hong , Pancholi, Preeti , Procop, Gary W , Rhoads, Daniel D , Riedel, Stefan , Vergidis, Paschalis , Vitale, Roxana G , Wengenack, Nancy L , White, Lewis , Wojewoda, Christina M , Zhang, Sean X , Cornely, Oliver A , Roilides, Emmanuel , Wiederhold, Nathan , Bai, Feng‐Yan , Chowdhary, Anuradha , Clark, Andrew, Dingle, Tanis C. , Dufresne, Philippe J. , Gangneux, Jean‐Pierre , Guillot, Jacques , Hawksworth, David L. , Hoenigl, Martin , Kus, Julianne V. , Lackner, Michaela , Martin, Isabella W. , Meyer, Wieland , Ostrosky‐Zeichner, Luis , Redhead, Scott A. , Stevens, Bryan, Wang, Qiming , Zhang, Sean X.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology | October 26, 2023 | Volume: 61 | Issue: 11 | Pages: No page available

10.1128/jcm.00873-23 Get It

ABSTRACT The rapid pace of name changes of medically important fungi is creating challenges for clinical laboratories and clinicians involved in patient care. We describe two sources of name change which have different drivers, at the species versus the genus level. Some suggestions are made here to reduce the number of name changes. We urge taxonomists to provide diagnostic markers of taxonomic novelties. Given the instability of phylogenetic trees due to variable taxon sampling, we advocate to maintain genera at the largest possible size. Reporting of identified species in complexes or series should where possible comprise both the name of the overarching species and that of the molecular sibling, often cryptic species. Because the use of different names for the same species will be unavoidable for many years to come, an open access online database of the names of all medically important fungi, with proper nomenclatural designation and synonymy, is essential. We further recommend that while taxonomic discovery continues, the adaptation of new name changes by clinical laboratories and clinicians be reviewed routinely by a standing committee for validation and stability over time, with reference to an open access database, wherein reasons for changes are listed in a transparent way.
Priorities and Progress in Diagnostic Research by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group
Hanson, Kimberly E. , Banerjee, Ritu , Doernberg, Sarah B. , Komarow, Lauren , Satlin, Michael J. , Schwager, Nyssa, Simner, Patricia J. , Patel, Robin , Group, for the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership, Abbenante, Erin, Baum, Keri, Souli, Maria , Mocka, Elizabeth, Hopkins, D. E., Giri, Abhigya, Zeng, Lijuan , Greenwood‐Quaintance, Kerryl E. , Booth, Grant, Waller, Jason, Raza, Praneeta , Sund, Zoë, Wickward, Cathy, Dai, Weixiao , Ghazaryan, Varduhi , Raterman, Erica L., Samuel, Tamika, Lee, Marina S. , Patel, Robin , Evans, Scott R , Hanson, Kimberly , Evans, Scott , Tillekeratne, L. Gayani , Group, for the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership, Tsalik, Ephraim L. , Hopkins, Deborah, Dodd, Andrew, Li, Yixuan , Hamasaki, Toshimitsu , Samuel, Tamika

Clinical Infectious Diseases | October 16, 2023 | Volume: 77 | Issue: Supplement_4 | Pages: S314-S320

10.1093/cid/ciad541 Get It

Abstract The advancement of infectious disease diagnostics, along with studies devoted to infections caused by gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria, is a top scientific priority of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG). Diagnostic tests for infectious diseases are rapidly evolving and improving. However, the availability of rapid tests designed to determine antibacterial resistance or susceptibility directly in clinical specimens remains limited, especially for gram-negative organisms. Additionally, the clinical impact of many new tests, including an understanding of how best to use them to inform optimal antibiotic prescribing, remains to be defined. This review summarizes the recent work of the ARLG toward addressing these unmet needs in the diagnostics field and describes future directions for clinical research aimed at curbing the threat of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing (January 2023)
Hayden, Mary K. , Hanson, Kimberly E. , Lee, Francesca , Lee, Mark J. , Loeb, Mark , Morgan, Daniel J., Alayli, Abdallah El, Mikati, Ibrahim K El , Sultan, Shahnaz , Falck–Ytter, Yngve , Mansour, Razan , Patel, Payal , Bhimraj, Adarsh , Hanson, Kimberly , Englund, Janet A. , Patel, Robin , Amarin, Justin Z. , Morgan, Rebecca L. , Murad, M. Hassan , Mustafa, Reem A

Clinical Infectious Diseases | January 26, 2023 | Volume: 78 | Issue: 7 | Pages: e350-e384

10.1093/cid/ciad032 Get It

Abstract 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. 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. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through 1 April 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel made 10 diagnostic recommendations that address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared with 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 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 with testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the testing methods 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.
Clinical and Infection Prevention Applications of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Genotyping: an Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Society for Microbiology Consensus Review Document
Greninger, Alexander L. , Bard, Jennifer Dien , Colgrove, Robert C. , Graf, Erin H. , Hanson, Kimberly E. , Hayden, Mary K. , Humphries, Romney M. , Lowe, Christopher F. , Pillai, Dylan R. , Rhoads, Daniel D. , Yao, Joseph D. , Lee, Francesca M, Dien Bard, Jennifer , Humphries, Romney , Hanson, Kimberly , Rhoads, Daniel D , Greninger, Alexander L , Graf, Erin H , Miller, Melissa B.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology | November 3, 2021 | Volume: 60 | Issue: 1 | Pages: No page available

10.1128/jcm.01659-21 Get It

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged into a world of maturing pathogen genomics, with more than 2 million genomes sequenced at the time of writing. The rise of more transmissible variants of concern that impact vaccine and therapeutic effectiveness has led to widespread interest in SARS-CoV-2 evolution.
Envisioning Future Urinary Tract Infection Diagnostics
Patel, Robin , Bard, Jennifer Dien , May, Larissa, Lee, Francesca M, Hayden, Mary K. , Doernberg, Sarah D B, Haake, David A. , Grigoryan, Larissa, Tsalik, Ephraim L. , Hanson, Kimberly E. , Grigoryan, Larissa , Patel, Robin , Hanson, Kimberly , Grigoryan, Larissa , Polage, Christopher R. , Fabre, Valeria , Doernberg, Sarah B. , Trautner, Barbara W.

Clinical Infectious Diseases | August 31, 2021 | Volume: 74 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 1284-1292

10.1093/cid/ciab749 Get It

Abstract 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.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing (June 2021)
Hanson, Kimberly E. , Altayar, Osama , Caliendo, Angela M. , Arias, Cesar Andres Diaz , Hayden, Mary K. , Lee, Mark J. , Loeb, Mark , Alayli, Abdallah El , Sultan, Shahnaz , Falck–Ytter, Yngve , Lavergne, Valéry , Mansour, Razan , Patel, Payal , Bhimraj, Adarsh , Hanson, Kimberly , Altayar, Osama , Englund, Janet A. , Patel, Robin , Morgan, Rebecca L. , Murad, M. Hassan , Mustafa, Reem A

Clinical Infectious Diseases | June 14, 2021 | Volume: 78 | Issue: 7 | Pages: e208-e229

10.1093/cid/ciab557 Get It

Abstract 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.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (January 2021)
Hanson, Kimberly E. , Caliendo, Angela M. , Arias, Cesar Andres Diaz , Hayden, Mary K. , Lee, Mark J. , Loeb, Mark , Alayli, Abdallah El , Altayar, Osama , Patel, Payal , Falck–Ytter, Yngve , Lavergne, Valéry , Sultan, Shahnaz , Bhimraj, Adarsh , Hanson, Kimberly , Altayar, Osama , Englund, Janet A. , Patel, Robin , Morgan, Rebecca L. , Murad, M. Hassan , Mustafa, Reem A

Clinical Infectious Diseases | January 15, 2021 | Volume: 78 | Issue: 7 | Pages: e170-e207

10.1093/cid/ciab048 Get It

Abstract 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.