Refine Search

New Search

Results: 6

(searched for: doi:10.1007/s10096-021-04243-0)
Save to Scifeed
Page of 1
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
, H. Houston, I. Baltas, J. Takata, K. Kavallieros, N. Vaughan, A.K. Amin, S.A. Aali, K. Moore, P. Milner, et al.
Published: 22 February 2022
Journal of Hospital Infection, Volume 123, pp 92-99; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2022.02.010

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Published: 21 February 2022
Abstract:
Background: The gold standard test for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) recommended by WHO is real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which has a turnaround time of five to six hours. Abbott ID NOW (Abbott Diagnostics Scarborough, Inc., Scarborough, ME, USA), the cartridge-based loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay, was approved by FDA for Emergency Use Authorization as rapid point of care testing. The present study was planned to evaluate the performance of the cartridge-based Abbott ID NOW test by comparing it to the currently used standard probe-based real-time RT-PCR method for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital in the eastern part of India after getting institutional ethics committee (IEC) approval. Two hundred fifty-nine cases of various age groups of both sexes who were advised for testing for SARS-CoV-2 were included in the study. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected according to protocol advisory by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), India. Dry swabs were sent for Abbott ID NOW testing and swabs in viral transport medium were sent for probe-based RT-PCR assay using the CoviPath kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Bangalore, India). The data were collected and statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for ID NOW were calculated taking RT-PCR as the gold standard. Results: Out of 259 patients enrolled in the study, 49% were symptomatic for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The prevalence rate of SARS-CoV-2 was 20.84% among the study population. Sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive values of ID NOW test in comparison to RT-PCR assay was found to be 87%, 98%, 92.1% and 96.8% respectively. ID NOW detected seven out of 54 (12.9%) cases as false negative who were found to be positive with RT-PCR, with mean Ct value of the target genes >34. Conclusions: In this study the overall sensitivity for ID NOW assay was found to be lower, but specificity, positive and negative predictive values were found to be higher. It had the highest correlation to RT-PCR among symptomatic patients and at higher viral loads. Due to the ease of use and shortest result time for detecting COVID-19, ID NOW test could be used as a point-of-care test. But for all tests, the results should be interpreted according to the clinical and epidemiological context.
Mbow Moustapha, Diallo Ibrahima, Diouf Mamadou, Cissé Marouba, Gningue Moctar, Mboup Aminata, Leye Nafissatou, Lo Gora, Dia Yacine Amet, Padane Abdou, et al.
International Journal of Clinical Virology, Volume 6, pp 001-006; https://doi.org/10.29328/journal.ijcv.1001041

Abstract:
Purpose: Real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-based testing remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Due to the high diagnosis demand of SARS-CoV-2 and the limited resources for RT-PCR testing, especially in Low-Income Countries (LICs), antigen-based methods are being considered as an option. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay for large population screening compared to RT-PCR. Methods: This evaluation was conducted on 4146 participants including travelers and participants under household survey and vaccine evaluation studies before injection of the first dose. Oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swaps were collected from each participant into 2 mL of viral transport medium (VTM) and 400 μl of VTM were used to assess the performance of LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay, compared to RT-PCR. Results: The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 of the cohort was 4.5% with RT-PCR and 4.1% with LumiraDx antigen test. Compared to the RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the LumiraDx antigen SARS-CoV-2 test were 82,7% [95% CI 74.1-89,7] and 99.9% [95% CI 99.6-99.9] respectively. Given the RT-PCR threshold cycle (Ct) range, the sensitivity was 92.1% [95% CI 84.6-96.3] when the Ct value was below or equal 33 cycles, and 38.1% [95% CI 18.9-61.3] when it was above 33 cycles. The inter-rater reliability showed a kappa coefficient of 0.88 when considering all the patients and 0.94 for Ct values below 33 cycles. Conclusion: Our data have shown that the LumiraDx platform can be considered for large-scale testing of SARS-CoV-2.
, M. Krause, H.-J. Ott, L. Kortüm, H-P. Schlaudt
Published: 13 September 2021
Abstract:
Summary Background The increasing number of cases and hospital admissions due to COVID-19 created an urgent need for rapid, reliable testing procedures for SARS-CoV-2 in Emergency Departments (ED) in order to effectively manage hospital resources, allocate beds and prevent nosocomial spread of infection. The ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay is a simple, user-friendly, rapid molecular test run on an instrument with a small footprint enabling point-of-care diagnostics. Methods In the first wave, outsourced RT-PCR testing regularly required 36-48 hours before results were available. This prospective study was conducted in the second wave (October 2020-April 2021) and evaluated the impact the implementation of the ID NOW™ COVID-19 test in the ED had on clinical care processes and patient pathways. 710 patients were recruited upon arrival at the ED which included those presenting clinical symptoms, asymptomatic individuals or persons fulfilling epidemiological criteria. The first anterior nasal swab was taken by trained nurses in the ambulance or a separate consultation room. The ID NOW™ COVID-19 test was performed in the ED in strict compliance with the manufacturer’s instructions and positive or suspected cases were additionally tested with RT_PCR (cobas SARS-COV-2 RT-PCR, Roche) following collection of a second nasopharyngeal NP specimen. Results Swabs directly tested with the ID NOW™ COVID-19 test showed a diagnostic concordance of 98 % (sensitivity 99.59 %, specificity 94.55 %, PPV 97.6 %, NPV 99.05 %) compared to RT-PCR as reference. The 488 patients that tested positive with the ID NOW™ COVID-19 had a Ct range in RT-PCR results between 7.94 to 37.42 (in 23.2 % > 30). Two false negative results (0.28%) were recorded from patients with Ct values > 30. 14 (1.69%) discordant results were reviewed case-by-case and usually associated with either very early or very advanced stages of infection. Furthermore, patients initially negative with the ID NOW™ COVID-19 test and admitted to the hospital were tested again on days 5 and 12: no patient became positive. Discussion The ID NOW™ COVID-19 test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated excellent diagnostic agreement with RT-PCR under the above-mentioned patients pathways implemented during the second wave. The main advantage of the system was the provision of reliable results within a few minutes. This not only allowed immediate initiative of appropriate therapy and care for COVID-19 (patient benefit) but provided essential information on isolation and thus available beds. This drastically helped the overall finances of the department and additionally allowed more patients to be admitted including those requiring immediate attention; this was not possible during the first wave since beds were blocked waiting for diagnostic confirmation. Our findings also show that when interpreting the results, the clinical condition and epidemiological history of the patient must be taken into account, as with any test procedure. Overall, the ID NOW™ COVID-19 test for SARS-CoV-2 provided a rapid and reliable alternative to laboratory-based RT-PCR in the real clinical setting which became an acceptable part of the daily routine within the ED and demonstrated that early patient management can mitigate the impact of the pandemic on the hospital.
Page of 1
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Back to Top Top