Prospective evaluation of ID NOW COVID-19 assay used as point-of-care test in an emergency department

Clinical evaluation of a modified SARS-CoV-2 rapid molecular assay, ID NOW ™ COVID-19 2.0

In the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), several types of instruments and reagents for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing have been introduced to meet clinical needs. We evaluated the clinical performances of ID NOW™ COVID-19 2.0 (ID NOW™ 2.0), which is capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 within 12 min as part of point-of-care testing (POCT). Patients who displayed COVID-19 related symptoms, and who were tested for screening purposes, were recruited to this study. Two nasopharyngeal swabs were collected and tested using the ID NOW™ 2.0 test. Reference testing was performed using the cobas 8800 or 6800 (reagents: cobas SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A/B). A total of 38 samples and 46 samples were tested positive and negative, respectively, by the reference test. The ID NOW™ 2.0 showed a sensitivity of 94.7% (95% CI: 82.3-99.4) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 92.3-100). Samples that were positive by reference testing had cycle threshold (Ct) values ranging from 11.90 to 35.41. Among these reference positive samples, two samples were negative by ID NOW™ 2.0 with Ct values of 35.25 and 35.41. For samples with Ct values < 35, the sensitivity of ID NOW™ 2.0 was 100%. In Japan, the restrictions related to COVID-19 have been relaxed, however the COVID-19 epidemic still continues. ID NOW™ 2.0 is expected to be used as a rapid and reliable alternative to laboratory-based RT-PCR methods.

The diagnostic accuracy of the ID NOW COVID-19 point of care test in acute hospital admissions

BACKGROUND

Prompt identification of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection on admission to hospital is crucial to ensuring initiation of appropriate treatment, optimising infection control and maintaining patient flow. The Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay (ID NOW) is a point-of-care, isothermal nucleic acid amplification test, capable of producing a result within minutes, potentially placing it as an invaluable tool in helping to control the coronavirus-disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ID NOW in acute hospital admissions.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective approach to data collection was undertaken in consecutive patients with ID NOW and Hologic Aptima™ SARS-CoV-2 transcription-mediated amplification assay (Aptima TMA) results, across three hospitals in the south-west of England between 1st March and 30th September 2021. A nasal swab was taken for ID NOW and a combined nose and throat swab for Aptima TMA. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated for ID NOW against Aptima TMA. This study was conducted during a period of alpha and delta strain predominance.

RESULTS

19,698 ID NOW assays were performed, of which 12,821 had an Aptima TMA assay performed within 24 hours. ID NOW had sensitivity of 85.2 % (95 % CI, 82.2-87.9) and specificity of 99.6 % (95 % CI, 99.4-99.7) compared with the reference assay. The overall PPV was 91.0 % (95 % CI, 88.5-93.0) and the overall NPV was 99.3 % (95 % CI, 99.1-99.4).

CONCLUSIONS

ID NOW offers a valid diagnostic tool to detect SARS-CoV-2, performing comparably to a reference laboratory-based assay which takes longer to provide results.

Implementation and impact of rapid SARS-CoV-2 point of care test on patient flow in the frailty pathway; A quality improvement approach

To maintain patient flow during the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid and accurate decisions for the safe triage of geriatrics patients was essential as turnaround times for laboratory testing was ineffective at supporting rapid clinical decision-making for transfer of care. Thus, to mitigate and inform these clinical decisions, a quality improvement collaborative project with the geriatrics and virology department was conducted at the Frailty Assessment Unit (FAU) at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. The goal was to facilitate patient triage during transfer of care with the introduction of Point of Care testing (POCT). The interventions which resulted in significant improvements were based on the fishbone problem solving approach and the driver diagram with change ideas informing the five Plan, Do, Study and Act (PDSA) cycles. The QI intervention was crucial in supporting clinical staff decision making during transfers for 95% of patients who had been clinically judged as asymptomatic for COVID-19 infection. High staff engagement was observed with 83% of staff suggesting the process map was easy to follow and 92% of clinical staff agreed it contained sufficient information to support the testing process. With POCT introduction, the proportion of patients who were transferred with an early POCT result increased by 20% in the Rosewell House group and by 65% in the community Hospitals group, once governance arrangements were in place. Finally, the considerable uptake of POCT by the ward consequently led to a decrease of up to 86% in the number of samples sent to the laboratory for rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing. The quality improvement project provided a rapid and reliable SARS-CoV-2 triage tool and was effectively integrated into the geriatrics triage algorithm to facilitate patient placement and flow.

Intensified screening for SARS-CoV-2 in 18 emergency departments in the Paris metropolitan area, France (DEPIST-COVID): A cluster-randomized, two-period, crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Asymptomatic and paucisymptomatic infections account for a substantial portion of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmissions. The value of intensified screening strategies, especially in emergency departments (EDs), in reaching asymptomatic and paucisymptomatic patients and helping to improve detection and reduce transmission has not been documented. The objective of this study was to evaluate in EDs whether an intensified SARS-CoV-2 screening strategy combining nurse-driven screening for asymptomatic/paucisymptomatic patients with routine practice (intervention) could contribute to higher detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections compared to routine practice alone, including screening for symptomatic or hospitalized patients (control).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a cluster-randomized, two-period, crossover trial from February 2021 to May 2021 in 18 EDs in the Paris metropolitan area, France. All adults visiting the EDs were eligible. At the start of the first period, 18 EDs were randomized to the intervention or control strategy by balanced block randomization with stratification, with the alternative condition being applied in the second period. During the control period, routine screening for SARS-CoV-2 included screening for symptomatic or hospitalized patients. During the intervention period, in addition to routine screening practice, a questionnaire about risk exposure and symptoms and a SARS-CoV-2 screening test were offered by nurses to all remaining asymptomatic/paucisymptomatic patients. The primary outcome was the proportion of newly diagnosed SARS-CoV-2-positive patients among all adults visiting the 18 EDs. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. The primary outcome was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (Poisson distribution) with the center and center by period as random effects and the strategy (intervention versus control) and period (modeled as a weekly categorical variable) as fixed effects with additional adjustment for community incidence. During the intervention and control periods, 69,248 patients and 69,104 patients, respectively, were included for a total of 138,352 patients. Patients had a median age of 45.0 years [31.0, 63.0], and women represented 45.7% of the patients. During the intervention period, 6,332 asymptomatic/paucisymptomatic patients completed the questionnaire; 4,283 were screened for SARS-CoV-2 by nurses, leading to 224 new SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses. A total of 1,859 patients versus 2,084 patients were newly diagnosed during the intervention and control periods, respectively (adjusted analysis: 26.7/1,000 versus 26.2/1,000, adjusted relative risk: 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) [0.94, 1.11]; p = 0.634)). The main limitation of this study is that it was conducted in a rapidly evolving epidemiological context.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that intensified screening for SARS-CoV-2 in EDs was unlikely to identify a higher proportion of newly diagnosed patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04756609.

Keigai-rengyo-to as post-exposure prophylaxis for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection

BACKGROUND

Effective prevention against COVID-19 is urgently required to control vaccine breakthrough infection. Laboratory and clinical data suggested that Keigai-rengyo-to (KRT) performs biological activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We investigated whether KRT could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in medical personnel exposed to patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted an open-label controlled clinical trial of medical personnel after COVID-19 vaccination at our hospital (ClinicalTrials.gov: UMIN000048389). Participants were close contacts recently exposed (<72 h) to patients with COVID-19. We provided the participants with KRT (7.5 g/day for 5 days) or no drug as a control. The primary endpoint was nicking endonuclease amplification reaction or polymerase chain reaction confirming incident SARS-CoV-2 infection. Safety was assessed in all treated participants.

RESULTS

Between January and September 2022, 38 close contacts were assigned: 20 to the KRT group and 18 to the control group. During 2 weeks of follow-up, 10/38 (26%) participants had new-onset COVID-19. The incidence of COVID-19 was significantly lower in the KRT group (2/20; 10%) than in the control group (8/18; 44%), with a medium effect size (p < 0.05; phi coefficient = -0.391; total absolute risk reduction: 34.4% points). The number needed to treat to prevent the occurrence of a COVID-19 case was 2.9. The overall relative risk was 0.23 (95% confidence interval: 0.06-0.78). No serious safety problems were detected.

CONCLUSION

Post-exposure prophylaxis with KRT can prevent the onset of COVID-19 in close contacts after vaccination. More randomized clinical trials with larger samples are required to better evaluate KRT as a post-exposure prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2.

Point-of-Care Devices for Viral Detection: COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

The pandemic of COVID-19 and its widespread transmission have made us realize the importance of early, quick diagnostic tests for facilitating effective cure and management. The primary obstacles encountered were accurately distinguishing COVID-19 from other illnesses including the flu, common cold, etc. While the polymerase chain reaction technique is a robust technique for the determination of SARS-CoV-2 in patients of COVID-19, there arises a high demand for affordable, quick, user-friendly, and precise point-of-care (POC) diagnostic in therapeutic settings. The necessity for available tests with rapid outcomes spurred the advancement of POC tests that are characterized by speed, automation, and high precision and accuracy. Paper-based POC devices have gained increasing interest in recent years because of rapid, low-cost detection without requiring external instruments. At present, microfluidic paper-based analysis devices have garnered public attention and accelerated the development of such POCT for efficient multistep assays. In the current review, our focus will be on the fabrication of detection modules for SARS-CoV-2. Here, we have included a discussion on various strategies for the detection of viral moieties. The compilation of these strategies would offer comprehensive insight into the detection of the causative agent preparedness for future pandemics. We also provide a descriptive outline for paper-based diagnostic platforms, involving the determination mechanisms, as well as a commercial kit for COVID-19 as well as their outlook.

SARS-CoV-2 Testing of Emergency Department Patients Using cobas® Liat® and eazyplex® Rapid Molecular Assays

Rapid testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) of patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) facilitates the decision for isolation on admission to hospital wards. Differences in the sensitivity of molecular assays have implications for diagnostic workflows. This study evaluated the performance of the cobas^® Liat^® RT-PCR, which is routinely used as the initial test for ED patients in our hospitals, compared with the eazyplex^® RT-LAMP. A total of 378 oropharyngeal and nasal swabs with positive Liat^® results were analysed. Residual sample aliquots were tested using NeuMoDx™, cobas^® RT-PCR, and the eazyplex^® assay. Patients were divided into asymptomatic (n = 157) and symptomatic (n = 221) groups according to the WHO case definition. Overall, 14% of positive Liat^® results were not confirmed by RT-PCR. These samples were mainly attributed to 26.8% of asymptomatic patients, compared to 3.8% of the symptomatic group. Therefore, positive Liat^® results were used to provisionally isolate patients in the ED until RT-PCR results were available. The eazyplex^® assay identified 62% and 90.6% of RT-PCR-confirmed cases in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, respectively. False-negative eazyplex^® results were associated with RT-PCR Ct values > 30, and were more frequent in the asymptomatic group than in the symptomatic group (38.1% vs. 5.1%, respectively). Both the Liat^® and eazyplex^® assays are suitable for testing symptomatic patients. Their use in screening asymptomatic patients depends on the need to exclude any infection or identify those at high risk of transmission.

Point-of-Care Testing for SARS-CoV-2: A Prospective Study in a Primary Health Centre

BACKGROUND

In 2020, health systems across the world responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by making rapid changes to reduce the risk of exposure in patients and healthcare professionals. The use of point-of-care tests (POCT) has been a central strategy in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. The aims of this study were to evaluate the impact of POCT strategy (1) on maintaining elective surgeries by removing the risk of delayed pre-appointment testing and turn-around times and (2) on time dedicated for end-to-end appointment and management, and (3) to assess the feasibility of using the ID NOW^® among healthcare professionals and patients in a primary care setting, requiring pre-surgical appointment and minor ENT surgery in the Townsend House Medical Centre (THMC), Devon, United Kingdom.

METHODS

A logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with the risk of canceled or delayed surgeries and medical appointments. Second, a multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted to calculate changes in the time dedicated to administrative tasks. A questionnaire was developed to assess the acceptance of POCT in patients and staff.

RESULTS

274 patients were included in this study; 174 (63.5%) in Group 1 (Usual Care) and 100 (36.5%) in Group 2 (Point of Care). Multivariate logistic regression showed that the percentage of postponed or canceled appointments was similar between the two groups (adjusted OR = 0.65, [95%CI: 0.22-1.88]; p = 0.42). Similar results were observed for the percentage of postponed or canceled scheduled surgeries (adjusted OR = 0.47, [95%CI: 0.15-1.47]; p = 0.19). The time dedicated to administrative tasks was significantly lowered by 24.7 min in G2 compared to G1 (p < 0.001). 79 patients in G2 (79.0%) completed the survey, and the majority agreed or strongly agreed that it improved care management (79.7%), decreased administrative time (65.8%), reduced the risk of canceled appointments (74.7%) and the traveling time to do COVID-19 test (91.1%). Having point-of-care testing in the clinic in the future seemed more than welcome by 96.6% of patients; 93.6% declared to be less stressed by having the test at the clinic than waiting for the results of the test realized elsewhere. The five healthcare professionals of the primary care center completed the survey, and all agreed that the POCT positively influences the workflow and can be successfully implemented into routine primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that NAAT-based point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 testing significantly improved flow management in a primary care setting. POC testing was a feasible and well-accepted strategy by patients and providers.

Recent advances in PCR-free nucleic acid detection for SARS-COV-2

As the outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2), fast, accurate, and economic detection of viral infection has become crucial for stopping the spread. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of viral nucleic acids has been the gold standard method for SARS-COV-2 detection, which, however, generally requires sophisticated facilities and laboratory space, and is time consuming. This review presents recent advances in PCR-free nucleic acid detection methods for SARS-CoV-2, including emerging methods of isothermal amplification, nucleic acid enzymes, electrochemistry and CRISPR.

Point of care molecular and antigen detection tests for COVID-19: current status and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been critical to support and management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Point of care testing (POCT) for SARS-CoV-2 has been a widely used tool for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

AREAS COVERED

POCT nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and rapid antigen tests (RATs) have been the most readily used POCT for SARS-CoV-2. Here, current knowledge on the utility of POCT NAATs and RATs for SARS-CoV-2 are reviewed and discussed alongside aspects of quality assurance factors that must be considered for successful and safe implementation of POCT.

EXPERT OPINION

Use cases for implementation of POCT must be evidence based, regardless of the test used. A quality assurance framework must be in place to ensure accuracy and safety of POCT.

FDA authorized molecular point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 tests: A critical review on principles, systems and clinical performances

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, 10 manufacturers of molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2 have received Emergency Use Authorizations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for point-of-care or over the counter use. In this review, the working principle of these tests is described as well as the relevant characteristics (e.g. time-to-result and specimen type). The analytical (e.g. analytical sensitivity) and clinical performance (positive and negative percent agreement) and useability characteristics (e.g. cost, reusability and throughput) of these tests are compared and critically reviewed. Also details for relevant respiratory multiplex assays of these 10 manufacturers are discussed. Critical review of scientific literature on these authorized tests revealed that for many of these tests publications are almost or completely absent, with the exception of two systems. The Xpert Xpress has been thoroughly investigated and good performance has been reported, whereas ID NOW is also well-represented in literature, but has relatively low sensitivity.

Evaluation of Four Fully Integrated Molecular Assays for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses during the Co-Circulation of SARS-CoV-2, Influenza and RSV

Background: The clinical presentation of viral respiratory infections is unspecific. We assessed the performances of two new RT-PCR, the Idylla™ SARS-CoV-2 and the Idylla™ SARS-CoV2/Flu/RSV, and two isothermal amplification assays, the ID NOW COVID and the ID NOW influenza A & B 2. Methods: The study was conducted in two parts: (i) the Idylla™ assays were assessed using a collection of nasopharyngeal swabs which were positive for various respiratory viruses. (ii) The performances of the four assays were assessed prospectively: all of the symptomatic patients admitted to the emergency department from 10 to 21 December were enrolled. Results: (i) All of the SARS-CoV-2 false negatives with the Idylla™ assays had a Ct value greater than 30 with the reference RT-PCR. No cross-reactivity was identified. (ii) Overall, 218 patients were enrolled. The respective prevalences of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and RSV were 19.8%, 4.8%, and 3.2%. All of the assays were 100% specific. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection was 97.7%, 82.5%, and 86.3% for the Idylla™ SARS-CoV2, the Idylla™ SARS-CoV2/Flu/RSV, and the ID NOW COVID-19, respectively. For influenza A, it was 90.0% for the Idylla™ SARS-CoV2/Flu/RSV and 80.0% for the ID NOW Influenza. Discussion. All of the assays are suitable for testing patients with respiratory symptoms. False negatives should be considered, and the test should be repeated regarding the context.

Impact of Fast SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Point-Of-Care Testing on Patients' Length of Stay in an Emergency Department

The ID NOW COVID-19 system (IDNOW) is a point-of-care test (POCT) providing results within 15 min. We evaluated the impact of IDNOW use on patient length of stay (LOS) in an emergency department (ED). In the ED of Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris, France, adult patients requiring a rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were tested with Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 or FilmArray respiratory panel RP2 in the virology laboratory between 18 October and 3 November 2020 (period 1) and with IDNOW between 4 November and 30 November 2020 (period 2). A total of 676 patients participated in the study, 337 during period 1 and 339 during period 2. The median LOS in ED was significantly higher in period 1 than in period 2 (276 versus 208 min, P < 0.0001). More patients spent less than 4 h in the ED in period 2 (61.3%) than in period 1 (38.3%) (P < 0.0001). By univariate analysis, factors associated with ED LOS were hypertension, anosmia/ageusia, number of patients per day, and ID NOW implementation in period 2. By multivariate analysis, the period of testing remained significantly associated with ED LOS. Rapid molecular SARS-CoV-2 POCT was associated with a reduced LOS for patients admitted to an ED.

IMPORTANCE During COVID-19 pandemic upsurges, emergency departments had to deal with a massive flow of incoming patients. The need for COVID-19 infection status determination before medical ward admission worsened ED overcrowding. The development of molecular point-of-care testing gave new opportunities for getting faster results of SARS-CoV-2 genome detection 24 h a day. In our study, we show, with a multivariate analysis, that the use of the POCT COVID-19 IDNOW reduced the ED length of stay by 1 h. The rate of patients who waited less than 4 h in the ED increased significantly. Our study highlights the benefit of COVID-19 molecular POCT for preventing ED overcrowding and facilitating bed allocation and SARS-CoV-2-infected patient isolation.

Recent advances and clinical application in point-of-care testing of SARS-CoV-2

The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 spread rapidly worldwide, posing a severe threat to public life and health. It is significant to realize rapid testing and timely control of epidemic situations under the condition of limited resources. However, laboratory-based standardized nucleic acid detection methods have a long turnaround time and high cost, so it is urgent to develop convenient methods for detecting COVID-19. This paper summarizes the point-of-care testing (POCT) developed for novel coronavirus from three aspects: nucleic acid extraction, nucleic acid amplification, and detection methods. This paper introduces a commercial real-time detection system that integrates the abovementioned three steps and the matters needing attention in use. The primary purpose of this review is to provide a reference for emergency response and rapid deployment of COVID-19 and some other emerging infectious diseases.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Abbott ID NOW SARS-CoV-2 rapid test for the triage of acute medical admissions

Background

Decisions to isolate patients at risk of having coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the emergency department (ED) must be rapid and accurate to ensure prompt treatment and maintain patient flow whilst minimising nosocomial spread. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays are too slow to achieve this, and near-patient testing is being used increasingly to facilitate triage. The ID NOW severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay is an isothermal nucleic acid amplification near-patient test which targets the RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase gene.

Aim

To assess the diagnostic performance of ID NOW as a COVID-19 triage tool for medical admissions from the ED of a large acute hospital.

Methods

All adult acute medical admissions from the ED between 31^st March and 31^st July 2021 with valid ID NOW and RT-PCR results were included. The diagnostic accuracy of ID NOW [sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV)] was calculated against the laboratory reference standard. Discrepant results were explored further using cycle threshold values and clinical data.

Findings

Two percent (124/6050) of medical admissions were SARS-CoV-2 positive on RT-PCR. Compared with PCR, ID NOW had sensitivity and specificity of 83.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 75.4–88.7] and 99.5% (95% CI 99.3–99.6), respectively. PPV and NPV were 76.9% (95% CI 69.0–83.2) and 99.6% (95% CI 99.5–99.8), respectively. The median time from arrival in the ED to ID NOW result was 59 min.

Conclusion

ID NOW provides a rapid and reliable adjunct for the safe triage of patients with COVID-19, and can work effectively when integrated into an ED triage algorithm.

Clinical and operational impact of rapid point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 detection in an emergency department

Study objective

Rapid point-of-care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 detection with Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19 test has been implemented in our Emergency Department (ED) for several months. We aimed to evaluate the operational impact and potential benefits of this innovative clinical pathway.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, descriptive, interventional, non-randomized study, before-after trial with the comparison of patient cohorts from two consecutive periods of seven weeks (observational pre-POC period vs interventional POC period).

Results

In 2020, throughout weeks 37 to 50, 3333 patients were assessed for eligibility and among them 331 (9.9%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections. Among the included patients, 136 (9.2%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the pre-POC period and 195 (10.5%) in the POC period. Among positive patients for SARS-CoV-2 related infection in-hospital mortality rate was similar between the two groups but the hospitalization rate was higher in the POC group (81.6% vs. 65.4%; p < 0.001). More patients in the POC period were able to leave the ED within 6 h. We examined rates of antibiotic, anticoagulant, and corticosteroid prescriptions among patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 in the ED. Only the rate of prescribed anticoagulants was found to be higher in the POC period (40% vs. 24.2%; p < 0.003).

Conclusion

We demonstrated that COVID-19 point-of-care testing speeds up clinical decision-making, improving use of recommended treatments for COVID-19, such as anticoagulants. Moreover, it improves the boarding time and significantly shortened the length of stay in the ED for patients requiring outpatient care.