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

The recent emergence of the 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 RT-PCR platforms, the Roche Cobas SARS-CoV2 and the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2. Both platforms demonstrate comparable performance; however, the run times for each assay are 3.5 hours and 45 minutes, respectively. In search for a platform with 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 minutes. 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.

[1]  M. Ciccozzi,et al.  Emerging SARS-CoV-2 mutation hot spots include a novel RNA-dependent-RNA polymerase variant , 2020, Journal of Translational Medicine.

[2]  C. Camargo,et al.  Respiratory Syncytial Virus Genomic Load and Disease Severity Among Children Hospitalized With Bronchiolitis: Multicenter Cohort Studies in the United States and Finland , 2014, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[3]  J. Kop,et al.  Multicenter Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Test , 2020, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[4]  Deborah Schron,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of Three Sample-to-Answer Platforms for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 , 2020, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[5]  C. Dolea,et al.  World Health Organization , 1949, International Organization.

[6]  Simon Anders,et al.  Screening for SARS-CoV-2 infections with colorimetric RT-LAMP and LAMP sequencing , 2020, medRxiv.

[7]  Gilles Collin,et al.  Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel, the First Rapid Multiplex PCR Commercial Assay for SARS-CoV-2 Detection , 2020, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[8]  Michael Libman,et al.  Diagnostic Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome–Related Coronavirus-2 , 2020, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  A. Harrington,et al.  Comparison of Abbott ID Now and Abbott m2000 Methods for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Nasopharyngeal and Nasal Swabs from Symptomatic Patients , 2020, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[10]  C. Schmotzer,et al.  Comparison of Abbott ID Now, DiaSorin Simplexa, and CDC FDA Emergency Use Authorization Methods for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Nasopharyngeal and Nasal Swabs from Individuals Diagnosed with COVID-19 , 2020, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[11]  R. Kagan,et al.  Evaluation of Transport Media and Specimen Transport Conditions for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by Use of Real-Time Reverse Transcription-PCR , 2020, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[12]  Comparison of Four Molecular In Vitro Diagnostic Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Nasopharyngeal Specimens , 2020, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.