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 minutes for staffing, 1.9–10.9 minutes for walk-away and 6.4–15.8 minutes for TAT per result. The Liat ranged 1.1–1.8 minutes for staffing, 20.0–20.5 minutes for walk-away and 21.3–22.0 minutes 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 minutes for staffing, 9.7 minutes for walk-away, and 15.6 minutes for TAT. Assuming prevalence of 20% influenza and 20% RSV, the ID Now sequential workflow resulted in medians of 9.4 minutes for staffing, 17.4 minutes for walk-away, and 27.1 minutes 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.
Competing Interest Statement
Stephen Young has participated in advisory boards for Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Quidel, Inc., and Mesa Biotech, Inc. Jamie Phillips is an employee of Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. Shaowu Tang and Joanna Sickler are employees of Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Pleasanton, California, USA. Sheena Chaudhuri was an employee of Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. at the time of the study.
Clinical Trial
Not applicable
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (Pleasanton, California, USA).
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Not Applicable
Any clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.
Not Applicable
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos