Literature DB >> 31826935

Molecular point-of-care testing for influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial virus: comparison of workflow parameters for the ID Now and cobas Liat systems.

Stephen Young1,2, Jamie Phillips3, Christen Griego-Fullbright2, Aaron Wagner2, Patricia Jim2, Sheena Chaudhuri4, Shaowu Tang4, Joanna Sickler4.   

Abstract

AIMS: Point-of-care (POC) tests for influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) offer the potential to improve patient management and antimicrobial stewardship. Studies have focused on performance; however, no workflow assessments have been published comparing POC molecular tests. This study compared the Liat and ID Now systems workflow, to assist end-users in selecting an influenza and/or RSV POC test.
METHODS: Staffing, walk-away and turnaround time (TAT) of the Liat and ID Now systems were determined using 40 nasopharyngeal samples, positive for influenza or RSV. The ID Now system requires separate tests for influenza and RSV, so parallel (two instruments) and sequential (one instrument) workflows were evaluated.
RESULTS: The ID Now ranged 4.1-6.2 min for staffing, 1.9-10.9 min for walk-away and 6.4-15.8 min for TAT per result. The Liat ranged 1.1-1.8 min for staffing, 20.0-20.5 min for walk-away and 21.3-22.0 min for TAT. Mean walk-away time comprised 38.0% (influenza positive) and 68.1% (influenza negative) of TAT for ID Now and 93.7% (influenza/RSV) for Liat. The ID Now parallel workflow resulted in medians of 5.9 min for staffing, 9.7 min for walk-away and 15.6 min for TAT. Assuming prevalence of 20% influenza and 20% RSV, the ID Now sequential workflow resulted in medians of 9.4 min for staffing, 17.4 min for walk-away, and 27.1 min for TAT.
CONCLUSIONS: The ID Now and Liat systems offer different workflow characteristics. Key considerations for implementation include value of both influenza and RSV results, clinical setting, staffing capacity, and instrument(s) placement. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  POC testing; diagnostics; virology

Year:  2019        PMID: 31826935     DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2019-206242

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  4 in total

1.  Clinical Performance of the Point-of-Care cobas Liat for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in 20 Minutes: a Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Glen Hansen; Zi-Xuan Wang; Kathleen G Beavis; Lars F Westblade; Nam K Tran; Jamie Marino; John Rodrigo; Kylie Labog; Run Jin; Nedra Love; Karen Ding; Sachin Garg; Alan Huang; Joanna Sickler
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 2.  Nucleic Acid-Based Sensing Techniques for Diagnostics and Surveillance of Influenza.

Authors:  Samantha J Courtney; Zachary R Stromberg; Jessica Z Kubicek-Sutherland
Journal:  Biosensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-02-12

3.  Summarizing Study Characteristics and Diagnostic Performance of Commercially Available Tests for Respiratory Syncytial Virus: A Scoping Literature Review in the COVID-19 Era.

Authors:  David I Bernstein; Asuncion Mejias; Barbara Rath; Christopher W Woods; Jamie Phillips Deeter
Journal:  J Appl Lab Med       Date:  2022-07-20

4.  Electrochemical Immunosensors Based on Screen-Printed Gold and Glassy Carbon Electrodes: Comparison of Performance for Respiratory Syncytial Virus Detection.

Authors:  Wioleta Białobrzeska; Daniel Firganek; Maciej Czerkies; Tomasz Lipniacki; Marta Skwarecka; Karolina Dziąbowska; Zofia Cebula; Natalia Malinowska; Daniel Bigus; Ewelina Bięga; Krzysztof Pyrć; Katarzyna Pala; Sabina Żołędowska; Dawid Nidzworski
Journal:  Biosensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-11-13
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.