Search

Scope: Since the onset of COVID-19, several assays have been deployed for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) published the first set of guidelines on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro diagnosis in February 2022. Because the COVID-19 landscape is rapidly evolving, the relevant ESCMID guidelines panel releases an update of the previously published recommendations on diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. This update aims to delineate the best diagnostic approach for SARS-CoV-2 in different populations based on current evidence., Methods: An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. The panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A list of clinical questions using the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, 2 panel members performed a literature search focusing on systematic reviews with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. The panel reassessed the PICOs previously defined as priority in the first set of guidelines and decided to address 49 PICO questions, because 6 of them were discarded as outdated/non-clinically relevant. The 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)-adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of recommendations (ADOLOPMENT)' evidence-to-decision framework was used to produce the guidelines., Questions Addressed by the Guidelines and Recommendations: After literature search, we updated 16 PICO questions; these PICOs address the use of antigen-based assays among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with different ages, COVID-19 severity status or risk for severe COVID-19, time since the onset of symptoms/contact with an infectious case, and finally, types of biomaterials used., (Copyright © 2023 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Scope: The objective of these guidelines is to identify the most appropriate diagnostic test and/or diagnostic approach for SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations are intended to provide guidance to clinicians, clinical microbiologists, other health care personnel, and decision makers., Methods: An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair and the remaining selected with an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search focusing on systematic reviews, with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. Quality of evidence assessment was based on the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation - adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of recommendations) approach., Recommendations: A total of 43 PICO questions were selected that involve the following types of populations: (a) patients with signs and symptoms of COVID-19; (b) travellers, healthcare workers, and other individuals at risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2; (c) asymptomatic individuals, and (d) close contacts of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. The type of diagnostic test (commercial rapid nucleic acid amplification tests and rapid antigen detection), biomaterial, time since onset of symptoms/contact with an infectious case, age, disease severity, and risk of developing severe disease are also taken into consideration., (Copyright © 2022 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Timely detection of antimicrobial (cephalosporin/carbapenem) resistance (AMR) determinants is crucial to the clinical management of bloodstream infections caused by Gram-negative bacteria (GNB)., Objectives: To review and meta-analyse the evidence for using commercially available molecular tests for the direct detection of AMR determinants in GNB-positive blood cultures (PBCs)., Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge., Study Eligibility Criteria: Clinical studies evaluating the performance of two major commercial systems, namely the Verigene® and FilmArray® systems, for rapid testing of GNB-PBCs, in comparison with the phenotypic or genotypic methods performed on GNB-PBC isolates., Methods: Literature search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria and, for meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of both systems, bivariate random-effects model., Results: Twenty studies were identified (3310 isolates) from 2006 to 2019. Nine studies were conducted in East Asia. In 15 studies using phenotypic comparators (1930 isolates), 1014 (52.5%) isolates were Escherichia coli, and 287 (14.9%) of all the isolates displayed AMR phenotypes. In five studies using genotypic comparators (1380 isolates), 585 (42.4%) were E. coli, and 100 (7.2%) of all the isolates displayed AMR genotypes. Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates for detection of AMR determinants by the Verigene (i.e. CTX-M, IMP, KPC, NDM, OXA and VIM) and/or FilmArray (i.e. KPC) systems were 85.3% (95% CI 79.9%-89.4%) and 99.1% (95% CI 98.2%-99.5%), respectively, across the 15 studies, and 95.5% (95% CI 89.2%-98.2%) and 99.7% (95% CI 99.1%-99.9%), respectively, across the five studies., Conclusions: Our findings show that the Verigene and FilmArray systems may be a valid adjunct to the conventional microbiology (phenotypic or genotypic) methods used to identify AMR in GNBs. The FilmArray system detects only one AMR genotype, namely KPC, limiting its use. Both Verigene and FilmArray systems can miss important cephalosporin/carbapenem resistance phenotypes in a minority of cases. However, the sensitivity and specificity of both systems render them valuable clinical tools in timely identification of resistant isolates. Further studies will establish the prominence of such rapid diagnostics as standard of care in individuals with bloodstream infections., (Copyright © 2019 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)