bioRxivMicrobiology
Comparative study of four SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) platforms demonstrates that ID NOW performance is impaired substantially by patient and specimen type.
P. R. Lephart, M. A. Bachman, W. LeBar, S. W. McClellan, K. Barron, L. Schroeder, D. W. Newton
Abstract
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.
- organism: virus
- assay: bulk RNA-seq
- research focus: host-pathogen & immune response
- approach: experimental assay
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Performance of Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 rapid nucleic acid amplification test in nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral media and dry nasal swabs, in a New York City academic institution
A. Basu, T. Zinger, … M. E. Aguero-Rosenfeld·Journal of Clinical MicrobiologyPeer-reviewed·Jul 23, 2020
- Comparison of the NeuMoDX, Diasorin Simplexa, Cepheid and Roche CDC SARS-CoV 2 EUA assays using nasopharyngeal/nasal swabs in universal transport media (UTM) and sputum and tracheal aspirates
R. J. Tibbetts, K. Callahan, … L. P. Samuel·bioRxiv·May 26, 2020
- Comparative performance of four nucleic acid amplification tests for SARS-CoV-2 virus
Qi-Zhen Zhuang, Zhenzhen Li, … Yujuan Xiong·Clinical LaboratoryPeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2021
- Comparison of 12 molecular detection assays for SARS-CoV-2
Y. Matsumura, T. Shimizu, … M. Nagao·bioRxiv·Jun 24, 2020
- Validation and Comparison of a Modified CDC Assay with two Commercially Available Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Respiratory Specimen
A. Lima, V. Healer, … S. Silbert·bioRxiv·Jun 29, 2020
- Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2
M. C. Smithgall, I. Scherberkova, … D. Green·bioRxiv·Apr 22, 2020