Abstract
Importance The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus has infected over 65 million people worldwide and caused over one and half million deaths. Definitive diagnosis and treatment require laboratory confirmation, which is generally based upon Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) tests carried out in a high-complexity laboratory. The Abbott ID NOW platform provides fast results but has been criticized for low sensitivity.
Objective To determine the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection by ID NOW in an ambulatory population presenting for initial diagnostic testing.
Design Consecutive patients presenting at the Febrile Upper Respiratory Infection clinics and other clinics at The Everett Clinic between April 8th and 22nd, 2020 provided two nasal swab samples, which were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using the ID NOW platform and an RT-PCR platform. Patients were excluded if they were unable to demonstrate an understanding of the study, unwilling to commit to having all samples collected, had a history of nosebleed in the past 24 hours, nasal surgery in the past two weeks, chemotherapy treatment with documented low platelet and low white blood cell counts, or acute facial trauma. The sensitivity for each platform was compared with a composite reference standard based upon all tests. In addition, a systematic review (subset of review CRD420202044410 registered on PROSPERO) was conducted using papers identified by searching PubMed, bioRxiv and medRxiv for investigations in which at least 20 subjects were simultaneously tested using ID NOW and RT-PCR, and which appeared between January 1, 2020 and August 16, 2020. Bias was assessed using the QUADAS2 instrument. Meta-analysis was conducted in which the results of this evaluation were combined with those of results from the systematic review to estimate the performance of ID NOW by comparison with RT-PCR.
Results The study enrolled 785 symptomatic patients, 21 of whom tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by both the ID NOW and RT-PCR assays, and 2 of whom tested positive only with the RT-PCR assay. In addition, the study enrolled 189 asymptomatic patients, none of whom tested positive by either ID NOW or RT-PCR. An “invalid” ID NOW assay result was reported for 9 subjects (2 asymptomatic, 7 symptomatic), all of whom tested negative by RT-PCR. Thus, the positive percent agreement between the ID NOW assay and the RT-PCR assay was 91.3%, and the negative percent agreement was 100%. The meta-analysis, which included the results of this evaluation together with results from our systematic review, allows us to estimate the sensitivity of the ID NOW assay to be 84% (95% CI 55-96%), and identifies patients with viral loads most likely to be associated with transmissible infections.
Discussion This clinical study and meta-analysis show that although the ID NOW platform is not as sensitive as RT-PCR for identification of SARS-CoV-2, it nevertheless provides a high positive and negative predictive value in many populations. Conclusions are limited by the relatively small sizes of many of the studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, together with the heterogeneity of populations enrolled and nucleic acid amplification tests utilized for comparison.
Competing Interest Statement
The Everett Clinic has received funding from Abbott which enabled Dr. Tu to complete the clinical evaluation.
Funding Statement
The clinical evaluation of the ID NOW device was supported by Abbott Diagnostics.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
United Health Group Office of Human Research Affairs 160 Second Street, Third Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 FWA00028881 OHRP Registration: IORG0010356
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data included in manuscript.
