About: The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States created a unique situation where multiple molecular diagnostic assays with various indications for use in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 rapidly received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA, were validated by laboratories and utilized clinically, all within a period of a few weeks. We compared the performance of four of these assays that were being evaluated for use at our institution: Abbott RealTime m2000 SARS-CoV-2 Assay, DiaSorin Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Abbott ID NOW COVID-19. Nasopharyngeal and nasal specimens were collected from 88 ED and hospital-admitted patients and tested by the four methods in parallel to compare performance. ID NOW performance stood out as significantly worse than the other three assays despite demonstrating comparable analytic sensitivity. Further study determined that the use of a foam nasal swab compared to a nylon flocked nasopharyngeal swab, as well as use in a population chronically vs. acutely positive for SARS-CoV-2, were significant factors in the poor comparable performance.   Goto Sponge  NotDistinct  Permalink

An Entity of Type : fabio:Abstract, within Data Space : wasabi.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

AttributesValues
type
value
  • The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States created a unique situation where multiple molecular diagnostic assays with various indications for use in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 rapidly received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA, were validated by laboratories and utilized clinically, all within a period of a few weeks. We compared the performance of four of these assays that were being evaluated for use at our institution: Abbott RealTime m2000 SARS-CoV-2 Assay, DiaSorin Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Abbott ID NOW COVID-19. Nasopharyngeal and nasal specimens were collected from 88 ED and hospital-admitted patients and tested by the four methods in parallel to compare performance. ID NOW performance stood out as significantly worse than the other three assays despite demonstrating comparable analytic sensitivity. Further study determined that the use of a foam nasal swab compared to a nylon flocked nasopharyngeal swab, as well as use in a population chronically vs. acutely positive for SARS-CoV-2, were significant factors in the poor comparable performance.
subject
  • United States
  • Animal anatomy
  • Products introduced in 1935
part of
is abstract of
is hasSource of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020


Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE     Content Formats:       RDF       ODATA       Microdata      About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data]
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software