The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Antigen Testing
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 16 June 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Clinical Infectious Diseases
Abstract
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. 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. 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. The panel agreed on 15 diagnostic recommendations. 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.Keywords
Funding Information
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (6 NU50CK000477-04-01)
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit:
- Hazardous Postoperative Outcomes of Unexpected COVID-19 Infected Patients: A Call for Global Consideration of Sampling all Asymptomatic Patients Before Surgical TreatmentWorld Journal of Surgery, 2020
- Comparison of a laboratory-developed test targeting the envelope gene with three nucleic acid amplification tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2Journal of Clinical Virology, 2020
- Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2Journal of Clinical Virology, 2020
- GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias, and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2020
- GRADE guidelines: 21 part 2. Test accuracy: inconsistency, imprecision, publication bias, and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of findings tablesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2020
- How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorialEvidence-Based Mental Health, 2019
- World Health Organization recommendations are often strong based on low confidence in effect estimatesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2014
- QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy StudiesAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2011
- Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse dataStatistics in Medicine, 2010
- Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviewsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005