Search

von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder. The management of patients with VWD who are undergoing surgeries is crucial to prevent bleeding complications. We systematically summarized the evidence on the management of patients with VWD who are undergoing major and minor surgeries to support the development of practice guidelines. We searched Medline and EMBASE from inception through October 2019 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs), comparative observational studies, and case series that compared maintaining factor VIII (FVIII) levels or von Willebrand factor (VWF) levels at >0.50 IU/mL for at least 3 days in patients undergoing major surgery, and those with options for perioperative management of patients undergoing minor surgery. Two authors screened and abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses when possible. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. We included 7 case series for major surgeries and 2 RCTs and 12 case series for minor surgeries. Very-low-certainty evidence showed that maintaining FVIII levels or VWF levels of >0.50 IU/mL for at least 3 consecutive days showed excellent hemostatic efficacy (as labeled by the researchers) after 74% to 100% of major surgeries. Low- to very-low-certainty evidence showed that prescribing tranexamic acid and increasing VWF levels to 0.50 IU/mL resulted in fewer bleeding complications after minor procedures compared with increasing VWF levels to 0.50 IU/mL alone. Given the low-quality evidence for guiding management decisions, a shared-decision model leading to individualized therapy plans will be important in patients with VWD who are undergoing surgical and invasive procedures.

von Willebrand disease (VWD) disproportionately affects women because of the potential for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), delivery complications, and postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). To systematically synthesize the evidence regarding first-line management of HMB, treatment of women requiring or desiring neuraxial analgesia, and management of PPH. We searched Medline and EMBASE through October 2019 for randomized trials, comparative observational studies, and case series comparing the effects of desmopressin, hormonal therapy, and tranexamic acid (TxA) on HMB; comparing different von Willebrand factor (VWF) levels in women with VWD who were undergoing labor and receiving neuraxial anesthesia; and measuring the effects of TxA on PPH. We conducted duplicate study selection, data abstraction, and appraisal of risk of bias. Whenever possible, we conducted meta-analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. We included 1 randomized trial, 3 comparative observational studies, and 10 case series. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that desmopressin resulted in a smaller reduction of menstrual blood loss (difference in mean change from baseline, 41.6 [95% confidence interval, 16.6-63.6] points in a pictorial blood assessment chart score) as compared with TxA. There was very-low-certainty evidence about how first-line treatments compare against each other, the effects of different VWF levels in women receiving neuraxial anesthesia, and the effects of postpartum administration of TxA. Most of the evidence relevant to the gynecologic and obstetric management of women with VWD addressed by most guidelines is very low quality. Future studies that address research priorities will be key when updating such guidelines.

Background Coronavirus disease (COVID–19) has resulted in the death of more than 3.5 million people worldwide. While COVID–19 mostly affects the lungs, different comorbidities can have an impact on its outcomes. We performed an overview of reviews to assess the effect of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) on contracting COVID–19, hospitalization, mortality, and disease severity. Methods We searched published and preprint databases. We updated the reviews by searching for primary studies published after August 2020, and prioritized reviews that are most updated and of higher quality using the AMSTAR tool. Results We included 69 systematic reviews and 66 primary studies. Twenty-eight reviews reported on the prevalence of CKD among patients with COVID–19, which ranged from 0.4 to 49.0%. One systematic review showed an increased risk of hospitalization in patients with CKD and COVID–19 (RR = 1.63, 95% CI 1.03–2.58) (Moderate certainty). Primary studies also showed a statistically significant increase of hospitalization in such patients. Thirty-seven systematic reviews assessed mortality risk in patients with CKD and COVID–19. The pooled estimates from primary studies for mortality in patients with CKD and COVID–19 showed a HR of 1.48 (95% CI 1.33–1.65) (Moderate certainty), an OR of 1.77 (95% CI 1.54–2.02) (Moderate certainty) and a RR of 1.6 (95% CI 0.88–2.92) (Low certainty). Conclusions Our review highlights the impact of CKD on the poor outcomes of COVID–19, underscoring the importance of identifying strategies to prevent COVID–19 infection among patients with CKD. Graphical abstract Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40620-021-01206-8.

Background A computable phenotype is an algorithm used to identify a group of patients within an electronic medical record system. Developing a computable phenotype that can accurately identify patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) will assist researchers in defining patients eligible to participate in clinical trials and other studies. Our objective was to assess the accuracy of a computable phenotype using International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th revision (ICD-9/10) codes to identify patients with ADPKD. Methods We reviewed four random samples of approximately 250 patients on the basis of ICD-9/10 codes from the EHR from the Kansas University Medical Center database: patients followed in nephrology clinics who had ICD-9/10 codes for ADPKD (Neph+), patients seen in nephrology clinics without ICD codes for ADPKD (Neph−), patients who were not followed in nephrology clinics with ICD codes for ADPKD (No Neph+), and patients not seen in nephrology clinics without ICD codes for ADPKD (No Neph−). We reviewed the charts and determined ADPKD status on the basis of internationally accepted diagnostic criteria for ADPKD. Results The computable phenotype to identify patients with ADPKD who attended nephrology clinics has a sensitivity of 99% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 96.4 to 99.7) and a specificity of 84% (95% CI, 79.5 to 88.1). For those who did not attend nephrology clinics, the sensitivity was 97% (95% CI, 93.3 to 99.0), and a specificity was 82% (95% CI, 77.4 to 86.1). Conclusion A computable phenotype using the ICD-9/10 codes can correctly identify most patients with ADPKD, and can be utilized by researchers to screen health care records for cohorts of patients with ADPKD with acceptable accuracy.

Background 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. Objective The 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 non-medical settings. Methods 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 April 1, 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel made ten diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. Conclusions U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared to 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 contrast, Ag tests have high specificity, and, 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 to testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remains the testing method 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.

Background Participant withdrawal from clinical trials occurs for various reasons, predominantly adverse effects or intervention inefficacy. Because these missing participant data can have implications for the validity, reproducibility, and generalizability of study results, when conducting a systematic review, it is important to collect and appropriately analyze missing data information to assess its effects on the robustness of the study results. Methods In this methodologic survey of missing participant data reporting and handling in systematic reviews, we included meta-analyses that provided pooled estimates of at least 1 dichotomous intervention outcome of a randomized controlled trial performed in adult kidney transplant subjects. Results Eighty-three systematic reviews (17 Cochrane and 66 non-Cochrane reviews) met the inclusion criteria. The most common intervention was drugs (80%), with the majority involving immunosuppressant drugs 55% (n = 46), followed by surgery in 14% (n = 12). The median follow-up duration was 12 months (maximum, 240 mo). Intention-to-treat or modified intention-to-treat analysis was reported in 24% (n = 20) of the reviews (76% of Cochrane and 10% of non-Cochrane). Overall, the majority of systematic reviews did not quantify (90% [n = 60] non-Cochrane and 29% [n = 5] Cochrane) or include the reasons for missing participant data (88% [n = 58] non-Cochrane and 24% [n = 4] Cochrane). Eleven percent (n = 9) handled missing participant data, 5% (n = 4) justified the analytical method(s) used to handle it, and 2% (n = 2) performed a sensitivity analysis for it. Conclusions Systematic reviews of kidney transplantation provide inadequate information on missing participant data and usually do not handle or discuss the associated risk of bias with it.

Background Von Willebrand Disease (VWD) is a common inherited bleeding disorder. Patients with VWD suffering from severe bleeding may benefit from the use of secondary long-term prophylaxis. Aim Systematically summarize the evidence on the clinical outcomes of secondary long-term prophylaxis in patients with VWD and severe recurrent bleedings. Methods We searched Medline and EMBASE through October 2019 for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies (OS) assessing the effects of secondary long-term prophylaxis in patients with VWD. We used Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool and the RoB for Non-Randomized Studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool to assess the quality of the included studies. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results We included 12 studies. Evidence from one placebo controlled RCT suggested that VWD prophylaxis as compared to no prophylaxis reduced the rate of bleeding episodes (Rate ratio [RR], .24; 95% confidence interval [CI], .17–.35; low certainty evidence), and of epistaxis (RR, .38; 95%CI, .21–.67; moderate certainty evidence), and may increase serious adverse events RR 2.73 (95%CI .12–59.57; low certainty). Evidence from four before-and-after studies in which researchers reported comparative data suggested that VWD prophylaxis reduced the rate of bleeding (RR .34; 95%CI, .25–.46; very low certainty evidence). Conclusion VWD prophylaxis treatment seems to reduce the risk of spontaneous bleeding, epistaxis, and hospitalizations. More RCTs should be conducted to increase the certainty in these benefits.

Von Willebrand Disease (VWD) is associated with significant morbidity as a result of excessive mucocutaneous bleeding symptoms. Patients with VWD can experience easy bruising, epistaxis, gastrointestinal and oral cavity bleeding, as well as heavy menstrual bleeding and bleeding after dental work, surgical procedures, and childbirth. Early diagnosis and treatment is important to prevent and treat these symptoms. We systematically reviewed the accuracy of diagnostic tests using different cut-off values of VWF:Ag and platelet-dependent VWF activity assays in the diagnosis of VWD. We searched Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for eligible studies. Two investigators screened and abstracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 and certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. We pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity and reported patient important outcomes when relevant. This review included 21 studies that evaluated VWD diagnosis, including the approach to patients with VWF levels that have normalized with age (6 studies), VWF cut-off levels for the diagnosis of Type 1 VWD (9 studies), and platelet-dependent VWF activity/VWF:Ag ratio cut-off levels for the diagnosis of Type 2 VWD (6 studies). The results showed low certainty in the evidence for a net health benefit from reconsidering the diagnosis of VWD versus simply removing the disease in patients with VWF levels that have normalized with age. For the diagnosis of Type 1 VWD, in patients with VWF:Ag

von Willebrand Disease (VWD) is associated with significant morbidity because of excessive bleeding. Early diagnosis and treatment are important to prevent and treat these symptoms. We systematically reviewed the accuracy of any von Willebrand factor (VWF) activity assay in the diagnosis and classification of patients for VWD. We searched Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for eligible studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. We pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. The review included 77 studies that evaluated the use of newer tests of VWF platelet binding activity (VWF:GPIbR, VWF:GPIbM) and VWF:RCo for the diagnosis of VWD (13 studies), VWF propeptide to VWF:Ag ratio, and desmopressin trial for the diagnosis of type 1C VWD (5 studies), VWF multimer analysis and VWF:CB/VWF:Ag ratio for the classification of type 2 VWD (11 studies), genetic testing and ristocetin-induced platelet aggregation to diagnose type 2B VWD (14 studies), genetic testing and FVIII:VWF binding to diagnose type 2N VWD (17 studies). Based on available diagnostic test accuracy, there appear to be comparable test accuracy results between newer tests of platelet binding activity of VWF function and VWF:RCo. The findings of these reviews support VWF multimer analysis or VWF:CB/VWF:Ag to diagnose type 2 VWD. The desmopressin trial test with 1- and 4-hour postinfusion blood work is the test of choice to confirm increased VWF clearance in patients with suspected VWD type 1C. Additionally, genetic testing is most useful in diagnosing type 2B VWD and has a role in the diagnostic algorithm of suspected type 2N VWD.

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.

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 approximately 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 non-medical 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 five diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies.Data on the clinical performance of U.S. Food and Drug Administration SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization is 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 to reference NAAT methods. Antigen test sensitivity is heavily dependent on viral load, with differences observed between symptomatic compared to asymptomatic individuals and the time of testing post onset of symptoms. Based on these observations, rapid 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 study aims is to use the fragility index (FI) to examine the strength of evidence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the last decade on kidney transplantation.We searched MEDLINE for studies on kidney transplantation. We included the RCTs that compared 2 groups with 1:1 randomization and reported significant P values (0.05) for a dichotomous outcome and were published in the top 10 transplant journals. We calculated the FI; a calculation used to determine the minimum number of subjects needed to change from a nonevent to an event to make the study results nonsignificant (P ≥ 0.05).Fifty-seven RCTs met our inclusion criteria. The median sample size was 100 participants in each arm, the median number of events was 16 (interquartile range, 8-30) in the intervention group. Among the included trials, 79% were industry-funded, 93% involved medications, and the majority were open label. The median FI was 3 (interquartile range, 1-11). In 43% of the trials, the number of patients reported lost to follow-up was higher than or equal to the FI. Only 4% of the RCTs imputed a value for the missing dichotomous outcome. Furthermore, the median number of subjects who discontinued the trial because of adverse effects was 21, which was greater than the FI in 60% of the RCTs.The arbitrary classification of results into "significant" and "nonsignificant" based on P value0.05 should perhaps be interpreted with the help of other statistical parameters and FI is one of them.

Von Willebrand disease (VWD) can be associated with significant morbidity. Patients with VWD can experience bruising, mucocutaneous bleeding, and bleeding after dental and surgical procedures. Early diagnosis and treatment are important to minimize the risk of these complications. Several bleeding assessment tools (BATs) have been used to quantify bleeding symptoms as a screening tool for VWD. We systematically reviewed diagnostic test accuracy results of BATs to screen patients for VWD. We searched Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for eligible studies, reference lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. Two investigators screened and abstracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. We pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. The review included 7 cohort studies that evaluated the use of BATs to screen adult and pediatric patients for VWD. The pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity were 75% (95% confidence interval, 66-83) and 54% (29-77), respectively. Certainty of evidence varied from moderate to high. This systematic review provides accuracy estimates for validated BATs as a screening modality for VWD. A BAT is a useful initial screening test to determine who needs specific blood testing. The pretest probability of VWD (often determined by the clinical setting/patient population), along with sensitivity and specificity estimates, will influence patient management.

BackgroundAccurate 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsIDSA 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.ResultsThe panel agreed on 17 diagnostic recommendations.ConclusionsUniversal 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.

BackgroundThe availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations, and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA.ObjectiveIDSA’s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development, and the selection of convalescent plasma donors.MethodsA 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 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations.ResultsThe panel agreed on 8 diagnostic recommendations.ConclusionsInformation on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests is rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified 3 potential indications for serologic testing, including (1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and ≥2 weeks have passed since symptom onset, (2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and (3) conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate. For the most updated version of these guidelines, please go to https://www.idsociety.org/covid19guidelines.

Background The availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well-defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. Objective IDSA’s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development and the selection of convalescent plasma donors. Methods 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 serologic tests. 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 eight diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Information on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests are rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified three potential indications for serologic testing including: 1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and at least two weeks have passed since symptom onset; 2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children; and 3) for conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate.