BACKGROUND: New partially or fully automated molecular diagnostic testing platforms are being developed to address the growing demand for fast, accurate, and cost-effective testing. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of the Alinity m system compared to the Abbott RealTime m2000 assay system in a large central molecular laboratory. STUDY DESIGN: Alinity m HIV-1, HCV, and HBV assay precision, reproducibility, and sensitivity were assessed using commercial customized dilution panels. Clinical performance of the Alinity m and m2000 assay systems was compared using standard lab protocols and residual, de-identified patient specimens. A workflow analysis of 1,068 samples compared turnaround times (TATs) on five m2000 systems and one Alinity m system running Alinity m HIV-1, HCV, HBV, HR HPV, and STI assays. RESULTS: The Alinity m assay system demonstrated high detectability and precision at clinical decision points and excellent correlation with Abbott RealTime assay results. Processing TAT for 100 % of results was 117 min on Alinity m. Sample onboard TAT, from sample loading to 95 % of results, was 5:15 h for Alinity m and 7:30 h for m2000. 100 % of STAT samples were processed within 4 h on Alinity m. Total TAT for 100 % of results from all five assays was 80 h for m2000 versus 9 h for Alinity m. CONCLUSIONS: The Alinity m system produces assay results comparable to those of the Abbott RealTime m2000 system, but with significantly faster turnaround times due to continuous loading and the ability to run multiple assays simultaneously on the same sample.
BACKGROUND: New partially or fully automated molecular diagnostic testing platforms are being developed to address the growing demand for fast, accurate, and cost-effective testing. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of the Alinity m system compared to the Abbott RealTime m2000 assay system in a large central molecular laboratory. STUDY DESIGN: Alinity m HIV-1, HCV, and HBV assay precision, reproducibility, and sensitivity were assessed using commercial customized dilution panels. Clinical performance of the Alinity m and m2000 assay systems was compared using standard lab protocols and residual, de-identified patient specimens. A workflow analysis of 1,068 samples compared turnaround times (TATs) on five m2000 systems and one Alinity m system running Alinity m HIV-1, HCV, HBV, HR HPV, and STI assays. RESULTS: The Alinity m assay system demonstrated high detectability and precision at clinical decision points and excellent correlation with Abbott RealTime assay results. Processing TAT for 100 % of results was 117 min on Alinity m. Sample onboard TAT, from sample loading to 95 % of results, was 5:15 h for Alinity m and 7:30 h for m2000. 100 % of STAT samples were processed within 4 h on Alinity m. Total TAT for 100 % of results from all five assays was 80 h for m2000 versus 9 h for Alinity m. CONCLUSIONS: The Alinity m system produces assay results comparable to those of the Abbott RealTime m2000 system, but with significantly faster turnaround times due to continuous loading and the ability to run multiple assays simultaneously on the same sample.