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.

Behind Every Great Infection Prevention Program is a Great Microbiology Laboratory: Key Components and Strategies for an Effective Partnership.

A great clinical microbiology laboratory supporting a great infection prevention program requires focusing on the following services: rapid and accurate identification of pathogens associated with health care-associated infections; asymptomatic surveillance for health care-acquired pathogens before infections arise; routine use of broad and flexible antimicrobial susceptibility testing to direct optimal therapy; implementation of epidemiologic tracking tools to identify outbreaks; development of clear result communication with interpretative comments for clinicians. These goals are best realized in a collaborative relationship with the infection prevention program so that both can benefit from the shared priorities of providing the best patient care.

Partnering with Local Hospitals and Public Health to Manage COVID-19 Outbreaks in Nursing Homes.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Almost half of deaths related to COVID-19 in the United States are linked to nursing homes (NHs). We describe among short-term and long-term residents at three NHs in Michigan the outbreak identification process, universal testing, point prevalence of COVID-19, and subsequent containment efforts, outcomes, and challenges. DESIGN: Outbreak investigation. SETTING: Three NHs in southeast Michigan. PARTICIPANTS: All residents (N = 215) at three NHs (total beds = 356) affiliated with a large academic healthcare system. METHODS: Upon detection of confirmed cases within the facility, each NH in collaboration and consultation with local hospital, public health officials, and parent corporation implemented immediate facility-wide testing and the following intervention measures: cohorting of COVID-19 positive residents; communication regarding testing and results with residents, healthcare professionals, and families; personal protective equipment reeducation and use throughout facilities; and dedicated staffing for infected patients cohorted in a dedicated COVID-19 wing. We collected patient data regarding demographics, symptoms, comorbidities, hospitalization, and 14-day outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 29 cases of COVID-19 were identified at three participating NHs. Nineteen cases of COVID-19 were identified through symptom-triggered testing from March 23 to April 23, 2020; 10 (4.7%) additional cases were identified through universal testing of 215 residents conducted from April 7 to 15, 2020. The hospitalization rate was 37.9%. The case fatality rate was 20.7% (6/29); these patients had multiple comorbidities. No residents who tested positive through the point-prevalence survey required hospitalization, and five were discharged home within 14 days. CONCLUSION: Proactive and coordinated steps between NH medical directors and administrators, referral hospitals including their laboratories, and local public health officials are necessary to rapidly respond to an outbreak and limit the transmission of COVID-19. This coordinated public health approach may save lives, minimize the burden to the healthcare system, and reduce healthcare costs.

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.