RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 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
JF Journal of Clinical Pathology
JO J Clin Pathol
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Association of Clinical Pathologists
SP 328
OP 334
DO 10.1136/jclinpath-2019-206242
VO 73
IS 6
A1 Stephen Young
A1 Jamie Phillips
A1 Christen Griego-Fullbright
A1 Aaron Wagner
A1 Patricia Jim
A1 Sheena Chaudhuri
A1 Shaowu Tang
A1 Joanna Sickler
YR 2020
UL http://jcp.bmj.com/content/73/6/328.abstract
AB 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.