Back

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

Kortuem, S. O.; Krause, M.; Ott, H.-J.; Kortuem, L.; Schlaudt, H.-P.

2021-09-13 emergency medicine
10.1101/2021.09.09.21263266 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe 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. MethodsIn 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 manufacturers 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. ResultsSwabs 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. DiscussionThe 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.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.0%
2
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.9%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.6%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.0%
6
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.7%
7
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
8
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
9
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
10
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
11
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
13
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
14
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
15
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
16
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
17
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
18
Journal of Medical Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
19
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
BioMed Research International
25 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
21
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
22
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
Journal of Hospital Infection
27 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
24
Pathogens
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
26
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
27
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Transfusion
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.5%
29
BMC Microbiology
35 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%