Dataset Information

Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created an urgent and unprecedented need for rapid large-scale diagnostic testing to inform timely patient management. However, robust data are lacking on the relative performance of available rapid molecular tests across a full range of viral concentrations. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to compare two recently-authorized rapid tests, Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Abbott ID Now SARS-CoV-2, to the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay for samples with low, medium, and high viral concentrations. STUDY DESIGN:A total of 113 nasopharyngeal swabs from remnant patient samples were tested, including 88 positives spanning the full range of observed Ct values on the cobas assay. RESULTS:Compared to cobas, the overall positive agreement was 73.9% with ID Now and 98.9% with Xpert. Negative agreement was 100% and 92.0% for ID Now and Xpert, respectively. Both ID Now and Xpert showed 100% positive agreement for medium and high viral concentrations (Ct value <30). However, for Ct values >30, positive agreement was 34.3% for ID Now and 97.1% for Xpert. CONCLUSIONS:While Xpert showed high agreement with cobas across a wide range of viral concentrations, this study highlights an important limitation of ID Now for specimens collected in viral or universal transport media with low viral concentrations. Further studies are needed to evaluate the performance of ID Now for direct swabs.

SUBMITTER: Smithgall MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7217789 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Smithgall Marie C MC Scherberkova Ioana I Whittier Susan S Green Daniel A DA

Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology 20200513

<h4>Background</h4>The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created an urgent and unprecedented need for rapid large-scale diagnostic testing to inform timely patient management. However, robust data are lacking on the relative performance of available rapid molecular tests across a full range of viral concentrations.<h4>Objective</h4>This study aimed to compare two recently-authorized rapid tests, Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Abbott ID Now SARS-CoV-2, to the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay for samples w ...[more]

PMID: 32434706

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTimely diagnosis of HIV in infants and children is an urgent priority. In Malawi, 40,000 infants annually are HIV exposed. However, gold standard polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) based testing requires centralised laboratories, causing turn-around times (TAT) of 2 to 3 months and significant loss to follow-up. If feasible and acceptable, minimising diagnostic delays through HIV Point-of-care-testing (POCT) may be cost-effective. We assessed whether POCT Cepheid Xpert HIV-1 Qual assay whole blood (XpertHIV) was more cost-effective than PCR.MethodsFrom July-August 2018, 700 PCR Abbott tests using dried blood spots (DBS) were performed on 680 participants who enrolled on the feasibility, acceptability and performance of the XpertHIV study. Newly identified HIV-positive We conducted a cost-minimisation and cost-effectiveness analysis of XpertHIV against PCR, as the standard of care. A random sample of 200 caregivers from the 680 participants had semi-structured interviews to explore costs from a societal perspective of XpertHIV at Mulanje District Hospital, Malawi. Analysis used TAT as the primary outcome measure. Results were extrapolated from the study period (29 days) to a year (240 working days). Sensitivity analyses characterised individual and joint parameter uncertainty and estimated patient cost per test.ResultsDuring the study period, XpertHIV was cost-minimising at $42.34 per test compared to $66.66 for PCR. Over a year, XpertHIV remained cost-minimising at $16.12 compared to PCR at $27.06. From the patient perspective (travel, food, lost productivity), the cost per test of XpertHIV was $2.45. XpertHIV had a mean TAT of 7.10 hours compared to 153.15 hours for PCR. Extrapolates accounting for equipment costs, lab consumables and losses to follow up estimated annual savings of $2,193,538.88 if XpertHIV is used nationally, as opposed to PCR.ConclusionsThis preliminary evidence suggests that adopting POCT XpertHIV will save time, allowing HIV-exposed infants to receive prompt care and may improve outcomes. The Malawi government will pay less due to XpertHIV's cost savings and associated benefits.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Publications

Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets