Molecular point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 using the ID NOW™ System in Emergency Department: Prospective Evaluation and Implementation in the Care Process

  1. S. Kortüm
  2. M. Krause
  3. H.-J. Ott
  4. L. Kortüm
  5. H-P. Schlaudt

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

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.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.09.21263266: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: The evaluation of the collected findings within the scope of the study was carried out with the consent of the patients and completely anonymised.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Sample collection and testing methods: To obtain material for testing, the sterile foam swab supplied with the ID NOW™ COVID-19 test (Abbott, Chicago, USA) was used to collect anterior nasal specimens from patients arriving in the ambulance whilst in a prone position.
    Abbott
    suggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)
    After extraction and completely anonymised processing of the data, further statistical evaluations were carried out using SPSS v23 software.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.09.21263266v1 on medRxiv