Update of European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases coronavirus disease 2019 guidelines: diagnostic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

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priority in the first set of guidelines and decided to address 49 PICO questions, because 6 of them were discarded as outdated/non-clinically relevant.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.

COVID-19 increased in Italian children in the autumn and winter 2021-2022 period when Omicron was the dominant variant.

AIM: We examined the prevalence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in children during the autumn and winter season from 1 September 2021 to 30 January 2022 and compared it with the same period in 2020-2021. METHODS: This study was carried out int the paediatric emergency department (PED) of a tertiary Italian hospital. We compared the clinical and demographical features of all children who presented during the two study periods and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: During the 2021-2022 autumn and winter season 5813 children presented to the PED, 19.0% were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 133 (12.0%) of those tested positive. In 2020-2021, 2914 presented to the PED, 12.3% were tested, and 30 (8.3%) of those tested positive. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical severity during the two study periods, despite a higher percentage of neurological symptoms in 2020-2021. Of the SARS-CoV-2-positive cases, 29/133 (21.8%) were hospitalised during the 2021-2022 season and 10/30 (33.3%) during the previous one. Only 3/163 children required intensive care. CONCLUSION: The greater spread of SARS-CoV-2 was probably due to the greater transmissibility of the Omicron variant, but the symptoms were mild and only 3 children required intensive care.

SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Results to Infer Active or Non-Active Virus Replication Status in COVID-19 Patients.

We used nasopharyngeal swab samples of patients with a symptomatic (n = 82) or asymptomatic (n = 20) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis to assess the ability of antigen detection tests to infer active (potentially transmissible) or inactive (potentially non-transmissible) infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Using the subgenomic RNA (sgRNA) as an active replication marker of SARS-CoV-2, 48 (76.2%), 56 (88.9%), and 63 (100%) of 63 samples with sgRNA positive results tested positive with the SD BIOSENSOR STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag (Standard Q), the SD BIOSENSOR STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA (Standard F), or the Fujirebio LUMIPULSE G SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Lumipulse) assay, respectively. Conversely, 37 (94.9%), 29 (74.4%), and 7 (17.9%) of 39 samples with sgRNA negative results tested negative with Standard Q, Standard F, or Lumipulse, respectively. Stratifying results by the number of days of symptoms before testing revealed that most antigen positive/sgRNA positive results were among samples tested at 2-7 days regardless of the assay used. Conversely, most antigen negative/sgRNA negative results were among samples tested at 16-30 days only when Standard Q or Standard F were used. In conclusion, based on our findings, a negative antigen test, especially with the Lumipulse assay, or a positive antigen test, especially with the Standard F assay, may suggest, respectively, the absence or presence of replication-competent SARS-CoV-2.

ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines: diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2.

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.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Bacterial Pneumonia in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 Using a Multiplex PCR Assay: A Large Italian Hospital's Five-Month Experience.

Bacterial pneumonia is a challenging coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) complication for intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians. Upon its implementation, the FilmArray pneumonia plus (FA-PP) panel's practicability for both the diagnosis and antimicrobial therapy management of bacterial pneumonia was assessed in ICU patients with COVID-19. Respiratory samples were collected from patients who were mechanically ventilated at the time bacterial etiology and antimicrobial resistance were determined using both standard-of-care (culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing [AST]) and FA-PP panel testing methods. Changes to targeted and/or appropriate antimicrobial therapy were reviewed. We tested 212 samples from 150 patients suspected of bacterial pneumonia. Etiologically, 120 samples were positive by both methods, two samples were culture positive but FA-PP negative (i.e., negative for on-panel organisms), and 90 were negative by both methods. FA-PP detected no culture-growing organisms (mostly Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa) in 19 of 120 samples or antimicrobial resistance genes in two culture-negative samples for S. aureus organisms. Fifty-nine (27.8%) of 212 samples were from empirically treated patients. Antibiotics were discontinued in 5 (33.3%) of 15 patients with FA-PP-negative samples and were escalated/deescalated in 39 (88.6%) of 44 patients with FA-PP-positive samples. Overall, antibiotics were initiated in 87 (72.5%) of 120 pneumonia episodes and were not administered in 80 (87.0%) of 92 nonpneumonia episodes. Antimicrobial-resistant organisms caused 78 (60.0%) of 120 episodes. Excluding 19 colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii episodes, AST confirmed appropriate antibiotic receipt in 101 (84.2%) of 120 episodes for one or more FA-PP-detected organisms. Compared to standard-of-care testing, the FA-PP panel may be of great value in the management of COVID-19 patients at risk of developing bacterial pneumonia in the ICU. IMPORTANCE Since bacterial pneumonia is relatively frequent, suspicion of it in COVID-19 patients may prompt ICU clinicians to overuse (broad-spectrum) antibiotics, particularly when empirical antibiotics do not cover the suspected pathogen. We showed that a PCR-based, culture-independent laboratory assay allows not only accurate diagnosis but also streamlining of antimicrobial therapy for bacterial pneumonia episodes. We report on the actual implementation of rapid diagnostics and its real-life impact on patient treatment, which is a gain over previously published studies on the topic. A better understanding of the role of that or similar PCR assays in routine ICU practice may lead us to appreciate the effectiveness of their implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Risk Factors for Mortality in Adult COVID-19 Patients Who Develop Bloodstream Infections Mostly Caused by Antimicrobial-Resistant Organisms: Analysis at a Large Teaching Hospital in Italy.

The aim of this study was to characterize COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2-infected) patients who develop bloodstream infection (BSI) and to assess risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality. We conducted a retrospective observational study of adult patients admitted for ≥48 h to a large Central Italy hospital for COVID-19 (1 March to 31 May 2020) who had or had not survived at discharge. We included only patients having blood cultures drawn or other inclusion criteria satisfied. Kaplan-Meier survival or Cox regression analyses were performed of 293 COVID-19 patients studied, 46 patients (15.7%) had a hospital-acquired clinically relevant BSI secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection, accounting for 58 episodes (49 monomicrobial and 9 polymicrobial) in total. Twelve episodes (20.7%) occurred at day 3 of hospital admission. Sixty-nine species were isolated, including Staphylococcus aureus (32.8%), Enterobacterales (20.7%), Enterococcus faecalis (17.2%), Candida (13.8%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (10.3%). Of 69 isolates, 27 (39.1%) were multidrug-resistant organisms. Twelve (54.5%) of 22 patients for whom empirical antimicrobial therapy was inappropriate were infected by a multidrug-resistant organism. Of 46 patients, 26 (56.5%) survived and 20 (43.5%) died. Exploring variables for association with in-hospital mortality identified > 75-year age (HR 2.97, 95% CI 1.15-7.68, p = 0.02), septic shock (HR 6.55, 95% CI 2.36-18.23, p < 0.001) and BSI onset ≤ 3 days (HR 4.68, 95% CI 1.40-15.63, p = 0.01) as risk factors independently associated with death. In our hospital, mortality among COVID-19 patients with BSI was high. While continued vigilance against these infections is essential, identification of risk factors for mortality may help to reduce fatal outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection to Expand Testing Capacity for COVID-19: Results from a Hospital Emergency Department Testing Site.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection has currently expanded the testing capacity for COVID-19, which yet relies on the SARS-CoV-2 RNA RT-PCR amplification. OBJECTIVES: To report on a COVID-19 testing algorithm from a tertiary care hospital emergency department (ED) that combines both antigen (performed on the ED) and RT-PCR (performed outside the ED) testing. METHODS: Between December 2020 and January 2021, in a priori designated, spatially separated COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 ED areas, respectively, symptomatic or asymptomatic patients received SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing on nasopharyngeal swab samples. Antigen results were promptly accessible to guide subsequent, outside performed confirmatory (RT-PCR) testing. RESULTS: Overall, 1083 (100%) of 1083 samples in the COVID-19 area and 1815 (49.4%) of 3670 samples in the non-COVID-19 area had antigen results that required confirmation by RT-PCR. Antigen positivity rates were 12.4% (134/1083) and 3.7% (66/1815), respectively. Compared to RT-PCR testing results, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of antigen testing were, respectively, 68.0%, 98.3%, 88.8%, and 94.1% in the COVID-19 area, and 41.9%, 97.3%, 27.3%, and 98.6% in non-COVID-19 area. Practically, RT-PCR tests were avoided in 50.6% (1855/3670) of non-COVID-19 area samples (all antigen negative) from patients who, otherwise, would have needed antigen result confirmation. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm had value to preserve RT-PCR from avoidable usage and, importantly, to save time, which translated into a timely RT-PCR result availability in the COVID-19 area.

Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay evaluation using clinical samples from different testing groups.

OBJECTIVES: Compared to RT-PCR, lower performance of antigen detection assays, including the Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay, may depend on specific testing scenarios. METHODS: We tested 594 nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals with COVID-19 (RT-PCR cycle threshold [Ct] values ≤ 40) or non-COVID-19 (Ct values >40) diagnoses. RT-PCR positive samples were assigned to diagnostic, screening, or monitoring groups of testing. RESULTS: With a limit of detection of 1.2 × 104 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL, Lumipulse showed positive percent agreement (PPA) of 79.9% (155/194) and negative percent agreement of 99.3% (397/400), whereas PPAs were 100% for samples with Ct values of <18 or 18-<25 and 92.5% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30. By three groups, Lumipulse showed PPA of 87.0% (60/69), 81.1% (43/53), or 72.2% (52/72), respectively, whereas PPA was 100% for samples with Ct values of <18 or 18-<25, and was 94.4, 80.0, or 100% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30, respectively. Additional testing of RT-PCR positive samples for SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic RNA showed that, by three groups, PPA was 63.8% (44/69), 62.3% (33/53), or 33.3% (24/72), respectively. PPAs dropped to 55.6, 20.0, or 41.7% for samples with Ct values of 25-<30, respectively. All 101 samples with a subgenomic RNA positive result had a Lumipulse assay's antigen positive result, whereas only 54 (58.1%) of remaining 93 samples had a Lumipulse assay's antigen positive result. CONCLUSIONS: Lumipulse assay was highly sensitive in samples with low RT-PCR Ct values, implying repeated testing to reduce consequences of false-negative results.

Saliva Is a Valid Alternative to Nasopharyngeal Swab in Chemiluminescence-Based Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen.

Diagnostic methods based on SARS-CoV-2 antigens detection are a promising alternative to SARS-CoV-2 RNA amplification. We evaluated the automated chemiluminescence-based Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay on saliva samples, using Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assay as a reference test. Analytical performance was established on a pool of healthy donors' saliva samples spiked with the 2019-nCoV/Italy-INMI1 isolate, whereas clinical performance was assessed on fresh saliva specimens collected from hospitalized patients with suspect or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.65 Log TCID50/mL, corresponding to 18,197 copies/mL of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Antigen concentrations and SARS-CoV-2 RNA were highly correlated (r = 0.99; p < 0.0001). Substantial agreement (80.3%) and significant correlation (r = -0.675; p = 0.0006) were observed between Lumipulse® G assay results and Ct values on clinical samples, with 52.4% sensitivity and specificity 94.1%. Sensitivity exceeded 90.0% when calculated on samples with Ct < 25, and specificity was 100% when excluding samples from recovered patients with previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Overall, chemiluminescence-based antigen assay may be reliably applied to saliva samples to identify individuals with high viral loads, more likely to transmit the virus. However, the low positive predictive value in a context of low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence underscores the need for confirmatory testing in SARS-CoV-2 antigen-positive cases.

Evaluation of three commercial assays for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection in upper respiratory tract samples.

The increasing COVID-19 widespread has created the necessity to assess the diagnostic accuracy of newly introduced (RT-PCR based) assays for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in respiratory tract samples. We compared the results of the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV assay with those of the Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assay and the Quanty COVID-19 assay, respectively, all performed on 125 nasal/oropharyngeal swab samples of patients with COVID-19 suspicion. Fifty-four samples were positive, and 71 were negative with the Allplex™ assay, whereas 47 of 54 samples were also positive with the Simplexa™ assay. The Quanty assay detected 55 positive samples, including the 54 positive samples with the Allplex™ assay and 1 sample that was Allplex™ negative but Simplexa™ positive. Using a consensus result criterion as the reference standard allowed to resolve the eight samples with discordant results (one Allplex™ negative and seven Simplexa™ negative) as truly false negative. Interestingly, a Spearman's negative association was found between the viral RNA loads quantified by the Quanty assay and the CT values of RT PCRs performed with either the Allplex™ assay or the Simplexa™ assay. However, the strength of this association was higher for the Allplex™ assay (N gene, ρ = - 0.92; RdRP gene, ρ = - 0.91) than for the Simplexa™ assay (ORF1ab gene, ρ = - 0.65; S gene, ρ = - 0.80). The Allplex™ 2019-nCoV, the Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct, and the Quanty COVID-19 assays yielded comparable results. However, the role these assays might play in future clinical practice warrants larger comparison studies.