Article Text

Download PDFPDF

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
  1. Stephen Young1,2,
  2. Jamie Phillips3,
  3. Christen Griego-Fullbright2,
  4. Aaron Wagner2,
  5. Patricia Jim2,
  6. Sheena Chaudhuri4,
  7. Shaowu Tang4,
  8. Joanna Sickler4
  1. 1 Department of Pathology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
  2. 2 TriCore Reference Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
  3. 3 Roche Diagnostics Corp, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
  4. 4 Roche Molecular Systems Inc, Pleasanton, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Stephen Young, TriCore Reference Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87102, USA; Steve.Young{at}


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.

  • diagnostics
  • virology
  • POC testing

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:

View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Handling editor Runjan Chetty.

  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was published Online First. In the take home messages box, the bulletpoint "The ID Now system offers…" has been updated.

  • Contributors SY and JS designed and planned the study. SC was the Study Monitor. SY, CG-F, AW and PJ conducted the study. ST analysed the study results. The workflow data were collected by Nexus. All authors interpreted the study results and contributed to the drafting and the review of the manuscript.

  • Funding This study was conducted at TriCore Reference Laboratories (Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA) and funded by Roche Molecular Systems, Inc (Pleasanton, California, USA).

  • Competing interests SY has participated in advisory boards for Roche Molecular Systems, Inc, Quidel, Inc and Mesa Biotech, Inc. JP is an employee of Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. ST and JS are employees of Roche Molecular Systems, Inc, Pleasanton, California, USA. SC was an employee of Roche Molecular Systems, Inc at the time of the study. CG-F, AW and PJ have no competing interests.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval The study was conducted in compliance with the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice Guidelines, and applicable US Food and Drug Administration regulations.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available on reasonable request.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.