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.
Abbott ID Now新型冠状病毒肺炎的性能使用在病毒运输介质中运输的鼻咽拭子和纽约市学术机构的干鼻拭子进行快速核酸扩增测试。
- 作者列表："Basu A","Zinger T","Inglima K","Woo KM","Atie O","Yurasits L","See B","Aguero-Rosenfeld ME
: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.
: 最近出现的新型冠状病毒 (SARS-CoV-2) 大流行给寻求可靠实验室诊断确认的临床实验室带来了巨大挑战。美国危机的迅速发展导致紧急使用授权 (EUA) 促进了分子诊断测定的可用性，而不需要更严格的检查，通常在FDA批准之前进行测试。我们的实验室目前使用两个实时逆转录-PCR (rt-pcr) 平台，罗氏Cobas SARS-CoV2和Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2。两个平台表现出相当的性能; 然而，每个测定的运行时间分别为3.5小时和45分钟。为了寻找一个周转时间更短的平台，我们试图评估最近发布的雅培ID Now新型冠状病毒肺炎检测，它能够在5分钟内产生积极的结果。我们在这里展示了Abbott ID Now新型冠状病毒肺炎和cepeid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2之间使用鼻咽拭子运输的比较结果在病毒转运介质中，Abbott ID Now新型冠状病毒肺炎和cepeid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2之间的比较使用在病毒转运介质中运输的鼻咽拭子用于Cepheid和干燥的鼻拭子用于Abbott ID Now。无论采集方法和样本类型如何，Abbott ID现在新型冠状病毒肺炎在45% 的样本中有阴性结果，当在病毒转运介质中使用鼻咽拭子时，Cepheid Xpert Xpress检测为阳性，当使用干鼻拭子时，为。
METHODS::The cytologic evaluation of serous effusions may be challenging for a number of reasons. Distinction of benign, reactive conditions from malignancy represents the main focus when examining these specimens. The morphologic diagnosis of malignancy may be difficult due to the relative paucity of abnormal cells. In other situations, cellularity is not an issue, but the ability to confidently identify a second, foreign (i.e., tumor) population within a background mesothelial cells on the basis of cytomorphologic features alone may pose problems. Cases with definitive morphologic evidence of malignancy may require additional studies in order to determine the tumor subtype and, in the case of carcinoma, the primary site of origin. Cases in which a definitive and precise diagnosis of malignancy is made may be optimal candidates for further molecular testing in order to gain prognostic information and guide personal therapeutic decisions. Finally, while an inflammatory or infectious condition can be suggested on the basis of cellular components and associated background elements, the identification of causative agent(s) may be difficult without additional studies. In all of these situations, the use of ancillary studies and techniques is critical; their utility and appropriate application are the subject of this review.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:To assess the rate of, and risk factors for, human cytomegalovirus viremia (HCMV) in donor+/recipient+ (HCMV serostatus matched) hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients. METHODS:HCMV DNA from 144 donor+/recipient+ HSCT recipients was examined by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). RESULTS:The cumulative incidence of HCMV viremia was 69.4% (100/144) during the 48 weeks after HSCT. In a multivariate analysis, acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) was discovered to be a risk factor for the occurrence of HCMV viremia (P = .006). The cumulative incidence of HCMV viremia and increasing DNA loads were significantly associated with aGVHD occurrence (P = .001 for each). The occurrence of late-term HCMV viremia was associated with aGVHD (P = .001) and a higher DNA load during the first 12 weeks after HSCT (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS:aGVHD is a risk factor for HCMV viremia. Recipients with aGVHD who have a high HCMV DNA load should be strictly monitored to prevent HCMV activation.
METHODS:OBJECTIVES:Malaria is one of most common tropical diseases encountered in travellers and migrants. It requires an urgent and reliable diagnosis considering its potential severity. In this study, performance of five diagnostic assays were evaluated in a nonendemic region and compared prospectively to quantitative PCR (qPCR). METHODS:A prospective study was conducted at Toulouse Hospital from August 2017 to January 2018 and included all patients with initial Plasmodium screening. Thin and thick blood smears (TnS, TkS), quantitative buffy coat (QBC), rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and commercial loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) were independently performed on each blood sample and compared to our qPCR reference standard. RESULTS:The study encompassed 331 patients, mainly returning from Africa. qPCR detected 73 Plasmodium-positive samples (including 58 falciparum). Individually, LAMP had a 97.3% (71/73) sensitivity, far ahead of TnS (84.9%, 62/73), TkS (86.3%, 63/73), QBC (86.3%, 63/73) and RDT (86.3%, 63/73). RDT demonstrated a high sensitivity for falciparum (98.3%, 57/58) but missed all ovale, malariae and knowlesi infections. Specificity was excellent for all techniques (99.6-100%). The most sensitive diagnosis strategies were TnS + RDT (95.9%, 70/73), TnS + LAMP (97.3%, 71/73) and TnS + RDT + LAMP (100%, 73/73), about 10% higher than strategies using exclusively microscopy, TkS + TnS (87.7%, 64/73) or QBC + TnS (87.7%, 64/73). TnS remains necessary for Plasmodium species identification and quantification. Adding sequentially TnS only on LAMP-positive samples did not decrease TnS + LAMP strategy sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS:In nonendemic countries, the currently recommended microscopy-based strategies seem unsatisfactory for malaria diagnosis considering RDT and LAMP performance, two rapid and sensitive assays that require limited training.