Prepandemic Predictors of Medication Adherence and HIV Viral Load During the First Year of COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: Studies have reported significant immediate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the social relationships and health care of people living with HIV. This study followed a closed cohort of young people living with HIV over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were men and women (N = 140) age 36 years and younger who were living with HIV and had demonstrated suboptimal adherence to antiretroviral therapy, unsuppressed HIV viral load, or active substance use in a run-in study. The results confirmed that participants continued to experience significant disruptions to their social relationships and health care over the course of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was evidence for sustained impacts on transportation, housing stability, and food security during the first year of COVID-19. Multivariable models showed that greater pre-COVID-19 social support predicted greater antiretroviral therapy adherence and greater HIV suppression (lower viral load) over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts to plan and prepare people living with HIV for future social crises, including future pandemics, should emphasize building and sustaining social support.

Intersecting Pandemics: Impact of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Protective Behaviors on People Living With HIV, Atlanta, Georgia.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 and its social responses threaten the health of people living with HIV. We conducted a rapid-response interview to assess COVID-19 protective behaviors of people living with HIV and the impact of their responses on HIV-related health care. METHOD: Men and women living with HIV (N = 162) aged 20-37 years participating in a longitudinal study of HIV treatment and care completed routine study measures and an assessment of COVID-19-related experiences. RESULTS: At baseline, most participants demonstrated HIV viremia, markers indicative of renal disorders, and biologically confirmed substance use. At follow-up, in the first month of responding to COVID-19, engaging in more social distancing behaviors was related to difficulty accessing food and medications and increased cancelation of health care appointments, both by self and providers. We observed antiretroviral therapy adherence had improved during the initial month of COVID-19 response. CONCLUSIONS: Factors that may pose added risk for COVID-19 severity were prevalent among people living with HIV, and those with greater risk factors did not practice more COVID-19 protective behaviors. Social distancing and other practices intended to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 interfered with HIV care, and impeded access to food and medications, although an immediate adverse impact on medication adherence was not evident. These results suggest social responses to COVID-19 adversely impacted the health care of people living with HIV, supporting continued monitoring to determine the long-term effects of co-occurring HIV and COVID-19 pandemics.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: 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. 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 five diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Aspergillus Polymerase Chain Reaction-An Update on Technical Recommendations, Clinical Applications, and Justification for Inclusion in the Second Revision of the EORTC/MSGERC Definitions of Invasive Fungal Disease.

Aspergillus polymerase chain reaction testing of blood and respiratory samples has recently been included in the second revision of the EORTC/MSGERC definitions for classifying invasive fungal disease. This is a result of considerable efforts to standardize methodology, the availability of commercial assays and external quality control programs, and additional clinical validation. This supporting article provides both clinical and technical justifications for its inclusion while also summarizing recent advances and likely future developments in the molecular diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis.

AGA Rapid Review and Guideline for SARS-CoV2 Testing and Endoscopy Post-Vaccination: 2021 Update.

This guideline provides updated recommendations on the role of preprocedure testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) in individuals undergoing endoscopy in the post-vaccination period and replaces the prior guideline from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) (released July 29, 2020). Since the start of the pandemic, our increased understanding of transmission has facilitated the implementation of practices to promote patient and health care worker (HCW) safety. Simultaneously, there has been increasing recognition of the potential harm associated with delays in patient care, as well as inefficiency of endoscopy units. With widespread vaccination of HCWs and the general population, a re-evaluation of AGA's prior recommendations was warranted. In order to update the role of preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2, the AGA guideline panel reviewed the evidence on prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV2 infections in individuals undergoing endoscopy; patient and HCW risk of infections that may be acquired immediately before, during, or after endoscopy; effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in reducing risk of infections and transmission; patient and HCW anxiety; patient delays in care and potential impact on cancer burden; and endoscopy volumes. The panel considered the certainty of the evidence, weighed the benefits and harms of routine preprocedure testing, and considered burden, equity, and cost using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Based on very low certainty evidence, the panel made a conditional recommendation against routine preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2 in patients scheduled to undergo endoscopy. The panel placed a high value on minimizing additional delays in patient care, acknowledging the reduced endoscopy volumes, downstream impact on delayed cancer diagnoses, and burden of testing on patients.

Validation and performance comparison of three SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays.

Serology testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is increasingly being used during the current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), although its clinical and epidemiologic utilities are still debatable. Characterizing these assays provides scientific basis to best use them. The current study assessed one chemiluminescent assay (Abbott COVID-2 IgG) and two lateral flow assays (STANDARD Q [SQ] IgM/IgG Duo and Wondfo total antibody test) using 113 blood samples from 71 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized patients, 119 samples with potential cross-reactions, and 1068 negative controls including 942 pre-pandemic samples. SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies became detectable 3-4 days post-symptom onset using SQ IgM test and IgG antibodies were first detected 5-6 days post-onset using SQ IgG. Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total were able to detect antibodies 7 to 8 days post-onset. After 14 days post-symptom onset, the SQ IgG, Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total tests were able to detect antibodies from 100% of the PCR-confirmed patients in this series; 87.5% sensitivity for SQ IgM. Overall agreement was 88.5% between SQ IgM/IgG and Wondfo Total and 94.6% between SQ IgG and Abbott IgG. No cross-reaction due to recent sera with three of the endemic coronaviruses was observed. Viral hepatitis and autoimmune samples were the main source of limited cross-reactions. The specificities were 100% for SQ IgG and Wondfo Total, 99.62% for Abbott IgG, and 98.87% for SQ IgM. These findings demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity of appropriately validated SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays with implications for clinical use and epidemiological seroprevalence studies.

To Test, Perchance to Diagnose: Practical Strategies for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Testing.

Testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients is an important component of the multifaceted approach of managing the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Determining how to best define testing strategies for different populations and incorporating these into broader infection prevention programs can be complex. Many circumstances are not addressed by federal, local, or professional guidelines. This commentary describes various scenarios in which testing of symptomatic or asymptomatic individuals for SARS-CoV-2 virus (antigen or ribonucleic acid) can be of potential benefit. Consideration to pretest probability, risks of testing (impact of false-positive or false-negative results), testing strategy, as well as action based on test results are explored. Testing, regardless of setting, must be incorporated into overarching infection control plans, which include use of personal protective equipment (eg, masks), physically distancing, and isolation when exposure is suspected.

Molecular Testing for Acute Respiratory Tract Infections: Clinical and Diagnostic Recommendations From the IDSA's Diagnostics Committee.

The clinical signs and symptoms of acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are not pathogen specific. Highly sensitive and specific nucleic acid amplification tests have become the diagnostic reference standard for viruses, and translation of bacterial assays from basic research to routine clinical practice represents an exciting advance in respiratory medicine. Most recently, molecular diagnostics have played an essential role in the global health response to the novel coronavirus pandemic. How best to use newer molecular tests for RTI in combination with clinical judgment and traditional methods can be bewildering given the plethora of available assays and rapidly evolving technologies. Here, we summarize the current state of the art with respect to the diagnosis of viral and bacterial RTIs, provide a practical framework for diagnostic decision making using selected patient-centered vignettes, and make recommendations for future studies to advance the field.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing.

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.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19:Serologic Testing.

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.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19.

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 assists 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 15 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 low 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 administration of immunosuppressive therapy. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.