Sensitivity of ID NOW and RT-PCR for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in an ambulatory population
- Everett Clinic, United States
- James J Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, United States
- Maryland School of Medicine, United States
Abstract
Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) requires confirmation by Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR). Abbott ID NOW provides fast results but has been criticized for low sensitivity. Here we determine the sensitivity of ID NOW in an ambulatory population presenting for testing. The study enrolled 785 symptomatic patients, 21 of whom were positive by both ID NOW and RT-PCR, and 2 only by RT-PCR. All 189 asymptomatic patients tested negative. The positive percent agreement between the ID NOW assay and the RT-PCR assay was 91.3%, and negative percent agreement was 100%. The results from the current study were included into a larger systematic review of literature where at least 20 subjects were simultaneously tested using ID NOW and RT-PCR. The overall sensitivity for ID NOW assay was calculated at 84% (95% CI 55- 96%) and had the highest correlation to RT-PCR at viral loads most likely to be associated with transmissible infections.
Data availability
All data used for analysis has been included in the figures, tables and two appendices.
Article and author information
Author details
Funding
NIH Clinical Center (U19 AG60917)
- Jameel Iqbal
NIH Clinical Center (R01 DK113627)
- Jameel Iqbal
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Ethics
Human subjects: The human ethics review and IRB for these studies was approved by the United Health Group Office of Human Research Affairs (OHRA), Federal wide Assurance #: FWA00028881, OHRP Registration #: IORG0010356.
Copyright
This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.
Metrics
-
- 59,642
- views
-
- 783
- downloads
-
- 29
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Sensitivity of ID NOW and RT-PCR for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in an ambulatory population
eLife 10:e65726.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65726
Further reading
-
- Medicine
- Microbiology and Infectious Disease
- Epidemiology and Global Health
- Immunology and Inflammation
eLife has published articles on a wide range of infectious diseases, including COVID-19, influenza, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, malaria and typhoid fever.
-
- Medicine
- Microbiology and Infectious Disease
Background:
Under which conditions antibiotic combination therapy decelerates rather than accelerates resistance evolution is not well understood. We examined the effect of combining antibiotics on within-patient resistance development across various bacterial pathogens and antibiotics.
Methods:
We searched CENTRAL, EMBASE, and PubMed for (quasi)-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from database inception to 24 November 2022. Trials comparing antibiotic treatments with different numbers of antibiotics were included. Patients were considered to have acquired resistance if, at the follow-up culture, a resistant bacterium (as defined by the study authors) was detected that had not been present in the baseline culture. We combined results using a random effects model and performed meta-regression and stratified analyses. The trials’ risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool.
Results:
42 trials were eligible and 29, including 5054 patients, qualified for statistical analysis. In most trials, resistance development was not the primary outcome and studies lacked power. The combined odds ratio for the acquisition of resistance comparing the group with the higher number of antibiotics with the comparison group was 1.23 (95% CI 0.68–2.25), with substantial between-study heterogeneity (I2=77%). We identified tentative evidence for potential beneficial or detrimental effects of antibiotic combination therapy for specific pathogens or medical conditions.
Conclusions:
The evidence for combining a higher number of antibiotics compared to fewer from RCTs is scarce and overall compatible with both benefit or harm. Trials powered to detect differences in resistance development or well-designed observational studies are required to clarify the impact of combination therapy on resistance.
Funding:
Support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 310030B_176401 (SB, BS, CW), grant 32FP30-174281 (ME), grant 324730_207957 (RDK)) and from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID, cooperative agreement AI069924 (ME)) is gratefully acknowledged.
