ABSTRACT
Despite the first-line recommendation of fosfomycin for uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), there are pressing barriers for optimizing its use for the treatment of non-Escherichia coli Enterobacterales UTI. There are no approved breakpoints for oral use against other Enterobacterales, and the recommended agar dilution (AD) reference method for minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) determination is largely impractical. Using 160 clinical Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates, we sought to understand rates of skipped wells and MIC imprecision in broth microdilution (BMD) and how that compares to rates of error using AD. Though the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute refers to the skipped well phenomena in their recommendation against the use of BMD, there is a paucity of data on its frequency. While AD and BMD produced similar MIC50/90 values (32/256 µg/mL for AD and 64/256 µg/mL for BMD), essential agreement was poor. No-growth wells at concentrations below the MIC occurred in up to 10.9% of wells at a given concentration, as the most frequent scientific error. Growth in concentrations above the measured MIC occurred in up to 3.3% of wells and was seen within three dilutions of the MIC for BMD. Observation of single colonies either at or beyond the measured MIC for AD was also common and occurred up to 8.3% and 2.5% of the time, respectively. The frequent scientific error in both testing methods should prompt re-evaluation of AD guidelines and expansion of MIC testing methods for fosfomycin susceptibility testing, as poor agreement with another method prone to scientific error should not be the main detractor from BMD use.IMPORTANCEDespite the recommendation of fosfomycin for uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), there are barriers for optimizing its use. There are no approved breakpoints for oral use against other Enterobacterales, and the recommended agar dilution (AD) reference method for MIC determination is largely impractical. The use of broth microdilution (BMD) for fosfomycin testing is not recommended by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute due to unsatisfactory precision and skipped wells-occurrence of no-growth in a single well before the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC)-and trailing endpoints. We sought to understand rates of skipped wells and growth at concentrations above measured MICs in BMD and how that compares to scientific error using AD. No-growth wells at concentrations below the MIC occurred in up to 10.9% of wells for BMD and single colonies at or beyond measured MICs for AD were also common. Frequent scientific error in both methods should prompt re-evaluation of both AD and BMD for fosfomycin susceptibility testing.
ABSTRACT
Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical trials necessitated rapid testing to be performed remotely. Dried blood spot (DBS) techniques have enabled remote HIV virologic testing globally, and more recently, antibody testing as well. We evaluated DBS testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody testing in outpatients to assess seropositivity. Methods: In 2020, we conducted 3 internet-based randomized clinical trials and offered serologic testing via self-collected DBS as a voluntary substudy. COVID-19 diagnosis was based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention case definition with epidemiological link to cases. A minority reported polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing at an outside facility. We tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin via antibody detection by agglutination-PCR (ADAP) and compared the results with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Results: Of 2727 participants in the primary studies, 60% (1648/2727) consented for serology testing; 56% (931/1648) returned a usable DBS sample. Of those who were asymptomatic, 5% (33/707) had positive ADAP serology. Of participants with a positive PCR, 67% (36/54) had positive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. None of those who were PCR-positive and asymptomatic were seropositive (0/7). Of 77 specimens tested for concordance via ELISA, 83% (64/77) were concordant. The challenges of completing a remote testing program during a pandemic included sourcing and assembling collection kits, delivery and return of the kits, and troubleshooting testing. Self-collection was successful for >95% of participants. Delays in US mail with possible sample degradation and timing of DBS collection complicated the analysis. Conclusions: We found remote antibody testing during a global pandemic feasible although challenging. We identified an association between symptomatic COVID-19 and positive antibody results at a similar prevalence as other outpatient cohorts.
