Amarin, Justin Z.

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.

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.

ImportanceRespiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) and infant hospitalization worldwide.ObjectiveTo evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of RSV-related critical illness in US infants during peak 2022 RSV transmission.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study used a public health prospective surveillance registry in 39 pediatric hospitals across 27 US states. Participants were infants admitted for 24 or more hours between October 17 and December 16, 2022, to a unit providing intensive care due to laboratory-confirmed RSV infection.ExposureRespiratory syncytial virus.Main Outcomes and MeasuresData were captured on demographics, clinical characteristics, signs and symptoms, laboratory values, severity measures, and clinical outcomes, including receipt of noninvasive respiratory support, invasive mechanical ventilation, vasopressors or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and death. Mixed-effects multivariable log-binomial regression models were used to assess associations between intubation status and demographic factors, gestational age, and underlying conditions, including hospital as a random effect to account for between-site heterogeneity.ResultsThe first 15 to 20 consecutive eligible infants from each site were included for a target sample size of 600. Among the 600 infants, the median (IQR) age was 2.6 (1.4-6.0) months; 361 (60.2%) were male, 169 (28.9%) were born prematurely, and 487 (81.2%) had no underlying medical conditions. Primary reasons for admission included LRTI (594 infants [99.0%]) and apnea or bradycardia (77 infants [12.8%]). Overall, 143 infants (23.8%) received invasive mechanical ventilation (median [IQR], 6.0 [4.0-10.0] days). The highest level of respiratory support for nonintubated infants was high-flow nasal cannula (243 infants [40.5%]), followed by bilevel positive airway pressure (150 infants [25.0%]) and continuous positive airway pressure (52 infants [8.7%]). Infants younger than 3 months, those born prematurely (gestational age <37 weeks), or those publicly insured were at higher risk for intubation. Four infants (0.7%) received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and 2 died. The median (IQR) length of hospitalization for survivors was 5 (4-10) days.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study, most US infants who required intensive care for RSV LRTIs were young, healthy, and born at term. These findings highlight the need for RSV preventive interventions targeting all infants to reduce the burden of severe RSV illness.

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.

Abstract Background Clinical differences between critical illness from influenza infection vs coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not been well characterized in pediatric patients. Methods We compared demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of US children (aged 8 months to 17 years) admitted to the intensive care or high-acuity unit with influenza or COVID-19. Using mixed-effects models, we assessed the odds of death or requiring life support for influenza vs COVID-19 after adjustment for age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, and underlying conditions including obesity. Results Children with influenza (n = 179) were younger than those with COVID-19 (n = 381; median, 5.2 years vs 13.8 years), less likely to be non-Hispanic Black (14.5% vs 27.6%) or Hispanic (24.0% vs 36.2%), and less likely to have ≥1 underlying condition (66.4% vs 78.5%) or be obese (21.4% vs 42.2%), and a shorter hospital stay (median, 5 days vs 7 days). They were similarly likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (both 30.2%), vasopressor support (19.6% and 19.9%), or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (2.2% and 2.9%). Four children with influenza (2.2%) and 11 children with COVID-19 (2.9%) died. The odds of death or requiring life support in children with influenza vs COVID-19 were similar (adjusted odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, .78–2.15; P = .32). Conclusions Despite differences in demographics and clinical characteristics of children with influenza or COVID-19, the frequency of life-threatening complications was similar. Our findings highlight the importance of implementing prevention measures to reduce transmission and disease severity of influenza and COVID-19.