Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFan, Shu-Ling Liang
dc.date2022-08-11T08:08:12.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T15:45:58Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T15:45:58Z
dc.date.issued2022-04-16
dc.date.submitted2022-05-23
dc.identifier.citation<p>Fan SL. Application of Abbott ID NOW in the emergency department for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A medical center's perspective. Clin Biochem. 2022 Apr 16:S0009-9120(22)00105-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2022.04.007. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35439532; PMCID: PMC9012670. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2022.04.007">Link to article on publisher's site</a></p>
dc.identifier.issn0009-9120 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2022.04.007
dc.identifier.pmid35439532
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/27654
dc.description.abstractTesting for SARS-CoV-2 is crucial to tracking and controlling the pandemic. In particular, rapid testing in settings such as the emergency department (ED) could improve time to diagnosis and promote proper infection control measures. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented the Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 method for screening symptomatic ED patients. However, due to concerns of suboptimal sensitivity, samples with a negative result were reflexed to the lab for confirmatory testing by the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo RT-PCR method. This study analyzed 6773 ID NOW results from April 2020 to September 2020 in the ED, of which 10% (n = 673) were positive and reported directly. The rest 90% (n = 6100) were negative and reflexed to RT-PCR. Among them, 3% (n = 175) turned positive on RT-PCR while 97% (n = 5925) of the results were consistently negative. The cycle threshold (Ct) values of the false-negative samples (n = 175) showed 90% (n = 158) of them with relatively low viral loads (Ct > /= 30) with median Ct value at 35, while a number of samples (n = 17) had low Ct values (Ct < 30) and no clear explanation for false-negative results. Our study demonstrates that the Abbott ID NOW, despite it's sensitivity limitations, was capable of providing near real-time results for 10% of symptomatic patients presenting to the ED allowing for improved management and workflow. However, our study findings emphasize the need to reflex negative specimens to a higher sensitivity method when prevalence is high and false-negative results are intolerable.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=35439532&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a></p>
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012670/
dc.subjectID NOW
dc.subjectRapid molecular testing
dc.subjectSARS-CoV-2
dc.subjectScreening
dc.subjectSensitivity
dc.subjectDiagnosis
dc.subjectEmergency Medicine
dc.subjectImmunopathology
dc.subjectInfectious Disease
dc.subjectPathology
dc.subjectVirus Diseases
dc.titleApplication of Abbott ID NOW in the emergency department for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A medical center's perspective
dc.typeArticle
dc.source.journaltitleClinical biochemistry
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/covid19/391
dc.identifier.contextkey29327230
html.description.abstract<p>Testing for SARS-CoV-2 is crucial to tracking and controlling the pandemic. In particular, rapid testing in settings such as the emergency department (ED) could improve time to diagnosis and promote proper infection control measures. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented the Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 method for screening symptomatic ED patients. However, due to concerns of suboptimal sensitivity, samples with a negative result were reflexed to the lab for confirmatory testing by the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo RT-PCR method. This study analyzed 6773 ID NOW results from April 2020 to September 2020 in the ED, of which 10% (n = 673) were positive and reported directly. The rest 90% (n = 6100) were negative and reflexed to RT-PCR. Among them, 3% (n = 175) turned positive on RT-PCR while 97% (n = 5925) of the results were consistently negative. The cycle threshold (Ct) values of the false-negative samples (n = 175) showed 90% (n = 158) of them with relatively low viral loads (Ct > /= 30) with median Ct value at 35, while a number of samples (n = 17) had low Ct values (Ct < 30) and no clear explanation for false-negative results. Our study demonstrates that the Abbott ID NOW, despite it's sensitivity limitations, was capable of providing near real-time results for 10% of symptomatic patients presenting to the ED allowing for improved management and workflow. However, our study findings emphasize the need to reflex negative specimens to a higher sensitivity method when prevalence is high and false-negative results are intolerable.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathcovid19/391
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Pathology, UMass Memorial Medical Center


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Publisher version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record