Performance of Abbott ID Now COVID-19 Rapid Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Using Nasopharyngeal Swabs Transported in Viral Transport Media and Dry Nasal Swabs in a New York City Academic Institution

Atreyee Basu,Tatyana Zinger,Kenneth Inglima,Kar-mun Woo,Onome Atie,Lauren Yurasits,Benjamin See,Maria E. Aguero-Rosenfeld

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01136-20

2020-07-24

Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract:The recent emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has posed formidable challenges for clinical laboratories seeking reliable laboratory diagnostic confirmation. The swift advance of the crisis in the United States has led to Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) facilitating the availability of molecular diagnostic assays without the more rigorous examination to which tests are normally subjected prior to FDA approval. Our laboratory currently uses two real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) platforms, the Roche Cobas SARS-CoV2 and the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2. The two platforms demonstrate comparable performances; however, the run times for each assay are 3.5 h and 45 min, respectively. In search for a platform with a shorter turnaround time, we sought to evaluate the recently released Abbott ID Now COVID-19 assay, which is capable of producing positive results in as little as 5 min. We present here the results of comparisons between Abbott ID Now COVID-19 and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 using nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral transport media and comparisons between Abbott ID Now COVID-19 and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 using nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral transport media for Cepheid and dry nasal swabs for Abbott ID Now. Regardless of method of collection and sample type, Abbott ID Now COVID-19 had negative results in a third of the samples that tested positive by Cepheid Xpert Xpress when using nasopharyngeal swabs in viral transport media and 45% when using dry nasal swabs.

microbiology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

This paper aims to evaluate the performance of Abbott ID NOW COVID - 19 rapid nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) in different sample types, especially compared with Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS - CoV - 2 test. Specifically, the researchers hope to understand the detection performance of Abbott ID NOW when using nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) transported in viral culture media and dry nasal swabs. ### Research Background - **SARS - CoV - 2 Epidemic**: Since it was first discovered in Wuhan, China at the end of 2019, SARS - CoV - 2 has spread rapidly around the world and has been declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. - **Diagnostic Requirements**: In order to effectively control the epidemic, rapid and accurate diagnostic tests have become particularly important. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accelerated the marketing of multiple molecular diagnostic reagents through Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). - **Existing Platforms**: The researchers' laboratory has already used two real - time RT - PCR platforms, namely Roche Cobas SARS - CoV - 2 and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS - CoV - 2, but these platforms have a long running time (3.5 hours and 45 minutes respectively) and cannot meet the timeliness requirements for clinical decision - making. ### Research Objectives - **Evaluate Abbott ID NOW**: This platform claims to produce positive results within 5 minutes. The researchers hope to evaluate the performance of Abbott ID NOW in different sample types (nasopharyngeal swabs and dry nasal swabs) by comparing it with Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS - CoV - 2. - **Sample Types**: - **Nasopharyngeal Swabs**: Transported in viral culture media. - **Dry Nasal Swabs**: Directly collected and transported at room temperature. ### Main Problems - **Performance Differences**: The researchers found that whether in nasopharyngeal swabs or dry nasal swabs, Abbott ID NOW has a higher proportion of negative results, especially in samples with low viral load (high Ct values). - **Positive Agreement**: Abbott ID NOW performs better in samples with high viral load, but has lower positive agreement in samples with low viral load. - **Influence of Sample Types**: When using dry nasal swabs, the positive agreement of Abbott ID NOW is lower than when using nasopharyngeal swabs. ### Conclusions - **Limitations of Abbott ID NOW**: Although Abbott ID NOW performs well in samples with high viral load, it has lower sensitivity in samples with low viral load and is not recommended as a single exclusion test. - **Clinical Applications**: The researchers suggest that when using Abbott ID NOW, low - viral - load samples should be treated with caution and other detection methods should be considered for confirmation. Through these studies, the paper provides performance data of Abbott ID NOW in different sample types for clinical laboratories, which is helpful to guide its rational selection and use in practical applications.

Performance of Abbott ID Now COVID-19 Rapid Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Using Nasopharyngeal Swabs Transported in Viral Transport Media and Dry Nasal Swabs in a New York City Academic Institution

Comparison of Abbott ID NOW, a novel isothermal amplification based COVID-19 diagnostic method with RTPCR

Clinical Evaluation and Utilization of Multiple Molecular In Vitro Diagnostic Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2

The ID NOW COVID-19, a high-speed high-performance assay

Performance Comparison of the Cobas® Liat® and Cepheid® GeneXpert® Systems on SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Nasopharyngeal Swab and Posterior Oropharyngeal Saliva.

Direct comparison of Xpert Xpress, FilmArray Respiratory Panel, Lumipulse antigen test, and RT-qPCR in 165 nasopharyngeal swabs

Comparative Performance of a New SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Detection System

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID‐19 Antigen Card Test, Puerto Rico

Comparison of SARS‐CoV‐2 detection from nasopharyngeal swab samples by the Roche cobas 6800 SARS‐CoV‐2 test and a laboratory‐developed real‐time RT‐PCR test

Comparison of the analytical sensitivity of seven commonly used commercial SARS-CoV-2 automated molecular assays

Evaluating the field performance of multiple SARS-Cov-2 antigen rapid tests using nasopharyngeal swab samples

Clinical performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing in point of care usage in comparison to RT-qPCR

Performance of High Throughput SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Testing Compared to Nucleic Acid Testing

Evaluation of mobile real-time polymerase chain reaction tests for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Evaluation of self‐collected nasal, urine, and saliva samples for molecular detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 using an EUA approved RT‐PCR assay and a laboratory developed LAMP SARS‐CoV‐2 test

Sample-to-answer, extraction-free, real-time RT-LAMP test for SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal, nasal, and saliva samples: Implications and use for surveillance testing

Evaluation of the analytical performance of the 15-minute point-of-care DASH™ SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR test

Detection of the Omicron Variant Virus With the Abbott BinaxNow SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Assay

Performance of rapid antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 variant diversity and correlation with viral culture positivity: implication for diagnostic development and future public health strategies

Rapid Development and Validation of a Novel Laboratory-Derived Test for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Comparative evaluation of RT-PCR and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection: performance, variant specificity, and clinical implications