Proceedings of the Clinical Microbiology Open 2018 and 2019 - a Discussion about Emerging Trends, Challenges, and the Future of Clinical Microbiology.

Clinical Microbiology Open (CMO), a meeting supported by the American Society for Microbiology's Clinical and Public Health Microbiology Committee (CPHMC) and Corporate Council, provides a unique interactive platform for leaders from diagnostic microbiology laboratories, industry, and federal agencies to discuss the current and future state of the clinical microbiology laboratory. The purpose is to leverage the group's diverse views and expertise to address critical challenges, and discuss potential collaborative opportunities for diagnostic microbiology, through the utilization of varied resources. The first and second CMO meetings were held in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Discussions were focused on the diagnostic potential of innovative technologies and laboratory diagnostic stewardship, including expansion of next-generation sequencing into clinical diagnostics, improvement and advancement of molecular diagnostics, emerging diagnostics, including rapid antimicrobial susceptibility and point of care testing (POCT), harnessing big data through artificial intelligence, and staffing in the clinical microbiology laboratory. Shortly after CMO 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic further highlighted the need for the diagnostic microbiology community to work together to utilize and expand on resources to respond to the pandemic. The issues, challenges, and potential collaborative efforts discussed during the past two CMO meetings proved critical in addressing the COVID-19 response by diagnostic laboratories, industry partners, and federal organizations. Planning for a third CMO (CMO 2022) is underway and will transition from a discussion-based meeting to an action-based meeting. The primary focus will be to reflect on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and better prepare for future pandemics.

Predicting Direct-Specimen SARS-CoV-2 Assay Performance Using Residual Patient Samples.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic sensitivities of point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 assays depend on specimen type and population-specific viral loads. Evaluation of these assays require "direct" specimens from paired-swab studies rather than more accessible residual specimens in viral transport media (VTM). METHODS: Residual VTM and limit-of-detection studies were conducted on Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19, Quidel Sofia 2™ SARS Antigen FIA, and DiaSorin Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assays, with cycle threshold (CT) adjustments to approximate direct-specimen testing based on gene-target doubling each PCR cycle. Logistic regression was used to model assay performance by specimen CT. These models were applied to CT distributions of symptomatic and asymptomatic populations presenting to emergency services to predict the percentage of specimens that would be detected by each assay. A 96-sample paired-swab study was conducted to confirm model results. RESULTS: When using direct nasopharyngeal samples and fit with either VTM or limit-of-detection data, percent positivities for ID NOW (symptomatic 94.9%/97.4%; asymptomatic 88.4.0%/89.6%) and Simplexa (symptomatic 97.8%/97.2%; asymptomatic 91.1%/90.8%) were predicted to be similar. Likewise, percent positivities for ID NOW with direct nasal specimens (symptomatic 77.8%; asymptomatic 64.5%) and, fit with VTM data, Sofia 2 with direct nasopharyngeal specimens (symptomatic 76.6%, asymptomatic 60.3%) were similar. The paired-swab study comparing direct nasopharyngeal specimens on ID NOW and nasopharyngeal VTM specimens on Simplexa showed 99% concordance. CONCLUSIONS: Assay performance can be modeled as dependent on viral load, fit using laboratory bench study results, and adjusted to account for direct-specimen testing. When using nasopharyngeal specimens, direct testing on Abbott ID NOW and VTM testing on DiaSorin Simplexa have similar performance.

Prolonged Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Replication in an Immunocompromised Patient.

We describe a case of chronic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a patient with lymphoma and associated B-cell immunodeficiency. Viral cultures and sequence analysis demonstrate ongoing replication of infectious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) for at least 119 days. The patient had 3 admissions related to COVID-19 over a 4-month period and was treated twice with remdesivir and convalescent plasma with resolution of symptoms. The patient's lack of seroconversion and prolonged course illustrate the importance of humoral immunity in resolving SARS-CoV-2 infection. This case highlights challenges in managing immunocompromised hosts, who may act as persistent shedders and sources of transmission.

Comparative study of four SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) platforms demonstrates that ID NOW performance is impaired substantially by patient and specimen type.

The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States created a unique situation where multiple molecular SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assays rapidly received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA and were validated by laboratories and utilized clinically, all within a period of a few weeks. We compared the performance of four of these assays that were evaluated for use at our institution: Abbott RealTime m2000 SARS-CoV-2 Assay, DiaSorin Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2, and Abbott ID NOW COVID-19. Nasopharyngeal and nasal specimens were collected from 88 ED and hospital-admitted patients and tested by the four methods in parallel to compare performance. ID NOW performance stood out as significantly worse than the other 3 assays despite demonstrating comparable analytic sensitivity. Further study determined that the use of a nasal swab compared to a nylon flocked nasopharyngeal swab, as well as use in a population chronically vs. acutely positive for SARS-CoV-2, were substantial factors.