A study to assess the impact of cobas Liat point-of-care PCR assays (SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B) on patient clinical management in the emergency department of the University of California at Davis Medical Center ===================================================================================================================================================================================================================== * Larissa May * Elissa M. Robbins * Jesse A. Canchola * Kamal Chugh * Nam K. Tran ## Abstract **Background** Rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for reduction of transmission and clinical decision-making. The cobas® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B nucleic acid test for use on the cobas Liat® System is a rapid (20 minutes) point-of-care (POC) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. **Methods** This unblinded, pre-post study enrolled consecutive patients with symptoms/signs consistent with SARS-CoV-2 infection presenting to the University of California, Davis emergency department (ED). Outcomes following implementation of the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B test (intervention period: December 2020–May 2021) were compared with previous standard-of-care using centralized laboratory PCR methods (control period: April 2020–October 2020). **Results** Electronic health records of 8879 symptomatic patients were analyzed, comprising 4339 and 4540 patient visits and 538 and 638 positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results in the control and intervention periods, respectively. Compared with the control period, turnaround time (TAT) was shorter in the intervention period (median 0.98 vs 12.3 hours; p<0.0001). ED length of stay (LOS) was generally longer in the intervention period compared with the control period, but for those SARS-CoV-2-negative who were admitted, ED LOS was shorter (median 12.53 vs 17.93 hours; p<0.0001). Overall, the rate of anti-infective prescribing was also lower in the intervention period than in the control period (antibiotics only: 38.11% vs 44.55%; p<0.0001 and antivirals only: 3.13% vs 0.94%; p<0.0001). **Conclusion** This real-world study confirms faster TAT with a POC PCR method in an emergency care setting and highlights the importance of rapid SARS-CoV-2 detection to aid patient management and inform treatment decisions. **Clinical Relevance** This study reports data collected from a quasi-experimental pre-post study using the electronic health records of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) of the University of California at Davis Medical Center with symptoms or signs consistent with SARS-CoV-2 infection during their ED visit. The primary objective of this study was to determine if implementation of the point-of-care (POC) cobas® Liat® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B test for use on the cobas Liat System reduced the diagnostic turnaround time and/or length of stay for ED patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the previous standards of care (batch-wise diagnostic testing using the cobas 6800 System and on-demand urgent testing on the GenMark Dx® ePlex® system in a centralized clinical laboratory). Ultimately, these data help to inform how implementation of POC molecular testing methods impact patient management. Keywords * SARS-CoV-2 * molecular testing * PCR * point-of-care * diagnosis ## Introduction As of May 26, 2022, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in an estimated 83,408,645 cases of COVID-19 in the United States (US), and 1,000,254 deaths (1). Even as vaccination levels increase in the general population, testing of symptomatic individuals is vital for controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; the causative agent of COVID-19), as vaccination alone does not prevent infection and transmission (2, 3). The choice of diagnostic test (e.g., nucleic acid amplification test [NAAT] or antigen detection and point-of-care [POC] or centralized testing) is setting dependent (4). Resources (e.g., availability of trained staff), turnaround time (TAT), testing capacity, assay performance (sensitivity and specificity), and patient characteristics, such as days since symptom onset, all need to be considered (4). Vaccination has resulted in the relaxation of public health mitigation measures in many geographical regions (5-7). The increase in respiratory viruses that had hitherto been reduced due to physical distancing measures (8, 9) makes it important for a clinician to determine whether COVID-19-associated symptoms are attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection, another respiratory infection (4), or a non-infectious etiology. The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant, which has a shorter incubation period than the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant (10) and potentially higher transmissibility than the ancestral viruses (11), increases the need for rapid diagnosis. As the pandemic has evolved, monoclonal antibody therapies have become available that are more effective if administered in the early stages of symptomatic infection (12), meaning that rapid diagnosis also has important implications for treatment. In the emergency department (ED), test results are often not immediately available (13); typical TATs for high-throughput NAATs can range from ∼1.5 hours to 8 hours (14), with approximately 97% of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results available within 23 hours from arrival in the ED (13). Symptomatic patients should be isolated in an examination room or designated area, in the absence of a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis, with consequences for allocations of hospital resources, including the need for isolation bays and personal protective equipment (15, 16). Given the implications for infection prevention, and the variability in isolation capacity (16), rapid results are helpful for the effective triage of ED patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2, both to reduce transmission and to identify those that may benefit from hospital admission or other therapeutic intervention (4). Further, performing on-demand POC testing in the ED while using centralized high-throughput systems for less urgent testing needs could increase overall testing capacity. At the onset of this study, the University of California (UC) at Davis Medical Center performed diagnostic testing in a centralized clinical laboratory. The cobas® Liat® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B nucleic acid test for use on the cobas Liat System (cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B test) is intended for the simultaneous rapid *in vitro* detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A and B virus nucleic acids in clinical specimens from individuals suspected of respiratory viral infection (17). The assay provides results from a single test to rule-in or rule-out influenza and COVID-19 simultaneously, within approximately 20 minutes (17). The primary objective of this study was to determine if implementation of the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B test reduced the diagnostic assay TAT and/or length of stay (LOS) for ED patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the previous standards of care. The secondary objectives were to determine the impact of POC testing on ED disposition and the use of anti-infectives in patient management. ## Materials and Methods ### Study design This was a retrospective, unblinded, quasi-experimental pre-post study The study comprised two periods: a control period (April 01, 2020 to October 31, 2020) and an intervention period (December 01, 2020 to May 31, 2021). ### Participants Individuals presenting at the UC Davis ED were included in the study consecutively if they had symptoms or signs consistent with COVID-19 at their ED visit (**Supplementary Table S1**). A real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 test must also have been ordered by the ED physician during the patient’s ED visit, in either study period. For each patient included in the study, the information of a complete event, defined as all diagnostics and prescriptions ordered within 30 days of the initial ED visit, was collected using electronic health records. ### Sample collection, storage and testing Samples were collected according to manufacturer instructions and analyzed as soon as possible, not exceeding maximum storage times and temperatures dictated by the manufacturer’s instructions for use (IFU) (17-19). In the control period, centralized diagnostic testing was conducted using the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test on the cobas 6800 System (19) or on-demand urgent testing using the GenMark Dx® ePlex® SARS-CoV-2 Test (18). The cobas 6800 System can perform more than 1000 tests per day, with first results reported in approximately 3 hours of loading (20, 21). In contrast, the assay run time for the ePlex SARS-CoV-2 Test is approximately 90 minutes (22) allowing for up to 288 samples per day (23) depending on instrument configuration and lab staffing. In the intervention period, the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B test was used for detection of the target sequences (17). ### Analysis For the purpose of this analysis, data from the two centralized testing methods were pooled to allow the comparison between POC PCR and centralized PCR methods. Data collected during November 2020 were excluded from the analysis as this was considered a transition period, allowing a phasing in of the POC assay. Samples yielding indeterminate/invalid results were handled per the assay IFUs (17-19). More information on test methods and analysis is available in the **Supplementary Materials**. ### Statistical analysis No formal sample size calculations were conducted for this study. All data analyses were performed using SAS/STAT® v9.4 software (24). Comparisons were made at the patient visit-level rather than continuously over the study duration. Patient data included in this study were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared between the control and intervention periods. The primary endpoints of TAT and LOS, and the secondary endpoints of ED disposition and anti-infective prescription rates, were also analyzed by SARS-CoV-2 test result. A post hoc analysis of LOS and anti-infective use was conducted to stratify data by ED disposition and by SARS-CoV-2 test result and ED disposition. Statistical hypothesis testing was performed using the Chi-Square test for categorical data, the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous-level non-normally distributed data and the Student’s t-test for normally distributed data. The rate of type I errors was controlled for using the false discovery rate method when conducting multiple comparisons. Indeterminate/invalid results were combined and included in the relevant tables but were not included in statistical hypothesis testing due to small sample sizes. ### Ethics statement This study was conducted in compliance with the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice Guidelines, and applicable US Food and Drug Administration regulations. The study protocol and de-identification procedure for patient data were approved by the UC Davis Institutional Review Board Administration. ### Data availability The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article and supplementary materials. ## Results ### Patient demographics and characteristics A total of 8879 medical records were included in the study (**Supplementary** Error! Reference source not found.). Patient demographics were similar (all comparisons, p>0.05) in the control and intervention cohorts (**Table 1**) and were therefore not controlled for in subsequent analyses. Across both periods, mean patient age was 47 years (median 51 years), the majority were White (42.03%), and 48.64% were female. Almost 40% of patients had a body mass index below the cut-off for obesity (<30.0 kg/m2) (25). View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/08/09/2022.08.08.22278536/T1) Table 1: Patient demographics The most commonly recorded SARS-CoV-2-related symptom was shortness of breath/difficulty breathing (21.83% control period, 18.57% intervention period) (**Supplementary Table S1**). Only one symptom was recorded for 54.51% of patients in control period and 47.97% in the intervention period), with 2 or ≥3 symptoms reported by <3% of patients each in either period (**Supplementary Table S2**). More SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests were conducted in the intervention period than in the control period (n=4540 vs n=4339), and of those, more tested positive in the intervention period (14.05% vs 12.40%, respectively). Twelve (0.28%) tests were recorded as invalid/other in the control period versus none in the intervention period (**Supplementary Table S3**; p<0.02 overall for test outcome between periods). ### Impact of rapid POC testing on TAT The TAT (defined here as time from electronic SARS-CoV-2 test order to result reporting) was shorter in the intervention period compared with the control period (median 0.98 vs 12.3 hours; p<0.0001) (**Table 2**). The lower end of the range for TAT in the control period (range 1.92, 74.38 hours) likely reflects samples analyzed with the ePlex SARS-CoV-2 Test, which has a shorter TAT than the cobas 6800. TAT was similarly reduced in the intervention period when analyzed by SARS-CoV-2 test result (**Table 2**) and when TAT was calculated as the time from sample collection to result reporting (**Supplementary Table S4**). View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/08/09/2022.08.08.22278536/T2) Table 2: Summary of SARS-CoV-2 test turnaround time (TAT), order to result ### Impact of rapid POC testing on ED LOS Median ED LOS was longer in the intervention period (7.56 vs 7.15 hours; p=0.02) and for patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 (p<0.0001) (**Table 3**). ED LOS was similar in both periods for patients negative for SARS-CoV-2. By ED disposition, median LOS was longer in the intervention period for those who were discharged after ED care (5.10 hours vs 4.43 hours; p<0.0001) but shorter for those admitted (13.50 hours vs 18.48 hours; p<0.0001). ED LOS was similar in both periods for those who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or who died (both p>0.05) (**Table 3**). View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/08/09/2022.08.08.22278536/T3) Table 3: Summary of patient’s emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS) By SARS-CoV-2 test result and ED disposition, median ED LOS was longer in the intervention period for those who were discharged, regardless of test result (both p<0.0001) (**Supplementary Table S5**). For those admitted, median ED LOS was longer in the intervention period for patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 result (p=0.02) and shorter with a negative result (p<0.0001). Hospital LOS was similar between study periods overall and when analyzed by SARS-CoV-2 result (all comparisons, p>0.05; **Supplementary Table S6**). ICU LOS was shorter in the intervention period compared with the control period overall (2.08 days vs 2.49 days; p=0.01) and for those with a negative SARS-CoV-2 result (p=0.01) (**Supplementary Table S7**). Patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 result had a similar ICU LOS in both periods (p>0.05). ### Impact of rapid POC testing on ED disposition Fewer patients were admitted to the ICU in the intervention period (11.78%) compared with the control period (14.22%; p=0.0026) (**Table 4**). Patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 result in the intervention period were more likely to be admitted to the hospital (p=0.0002) and less likely to be discharged (p=0.0002). Conversely, patients who tested negative were less likely to be admitted to the ICU in the intervention period (p=0.0006). View this table: [Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/08/09/2022.08.08.22278536/T4) Table 4: Summary of emergency department (ED) disposition ### Impact of rapid POC testing on antibiotic/antiviral use Antibiotic-only use was 14.5% lower in the intervention period (38.11% vs 44.55%; p<0.0001; **Table 5**), and the magnitude of the change was greater in patients with a positive vs negative SARS-CoV-2 result (47.2% vs 10.6% reduction; p<0.0001 for both). Antiviral-only use was higher in the intervention period compared with the control period (3.13% vs 0.94%; p<0.0001). Antivirals were prescribed more in the intervention period when patients were SARS-CoV-2 positive (14.89%) than when negative (0.92%). Approximately half of patients received no antibiotic or antiviral in both periods, though a higher proportion of patients received neither in the intervention period (54.25% vs 49.97%; p<0.0001). View this table: [Table 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/08/09/2022.08.08.22278536/T5) Table 5: Summary of anti-infective prescriptions Patterns of anti-infective prescription were similar when analyzed by ED disposition (**Table 5**). However, as would be expected based on prescribing requirements, greater prescription of antivirals in the intervention period compared with the control period was more evident in those admitted to hospital or the ICU. By SARS-CoV-2 test result and ED disposition (**Supplementary Table S8**), antibiotic-only use in the intervention period compared with the control period was considerably lower in positive patients who were discharged or admitted (both p<0.0001). For SARS-CoV-2-negative patients, antibiotic prescriptions were similar in both periods for those who were discharged (p>0.05) but lower in the intervention period for those who were admitted to hospital (p=0.01). Summaries of antibiotic and antiviral prescription rates by month are available in **Supplementary Tables S9 and S10**, respectively. ## Discussion In this large study, ED patients with signs or symptoms consistent with COVID-19 received POC PCR test results in under an hour, compared with approximately 12 hours for centralized tests, when averaged across the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test and ePlex Test. The faster TAT did not reduce median ED LOS overall but did appear to reduce ED LOS for patients with negative test results who were subsequently admitted, suggesting more effective patient triage. The rate of antibiotic prescribing was also lower in the intervention period than in the control period overall, and in the population of patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, which could support improved antibiotic stewardship with faster diagnosis. Previous studies have evaluated the clinical performance of the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B test compared with other RT-PCR systems, such as the Cepheid® GeneXpert system® (26) and the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test on the cobas 6800/8800 Systems (27), and have demonstrated 100% positive percent agreement and 97–100% negative percent agreement. One study, conducted in an ED in Germany, estimated that POC PCR results using the cobas Liat System were available after 102 minutes from admission, which was shorter than the 811 minutes with central laboratory PCR (28). Though the TAT observed in the clinic is longer than the 20-minute assay run time, demonstrating some delay in the testing strategy, time to result is still substantially shorter than for centralized PCR methods. Fast TAT with a reliable POC PCR assay for respiratory pathogens can reduce ED LOS (29). However, as in our study, some have reported increased ED LOS following the introduction of rapid diagnostic tests (30, 31). It is likely that factors other than TAT, such as availability of hospital resources (including number of isolation rooms), severity of symptoms, and presence of comorbidities requiring further work-up, contribute to longer ED LOS (30, 31). In this study, the ED had a higher number of symptomatic patient visits and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results in the intervention period than in the control period, likely related to the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants, most notably Delta, diving surges (32), which may have contributed to increased LOS in the intervention period. Despite this, we found that ED LOS for patients with negative test results who were admitted was shorter following POC PCR implementation, indicating more effective patient triage. Across both study periods, approximately 50% of ED patients were discharged and 37% were admitted. Though ICU admissions were lower in the intervention period, this result should be interpreted with care. Lower ICU admissions could indicate improved patient triage and management, which would have cost-saving implications (33, 34), but it is possible that patients in the control period had a variant associated with more severe disease (35), or that the reduction was due to other changes in hospital practices. Admission rates appeared higher than in other studies of symptomatic patients who were PCR tested for SARS-CoV-2, where admission rates were approximately 27–28% (36, 37). Higher admission rates could reflect the severity of symptoms encountered in this cohort, differences in hospital practices, or factors such as comorbidities that have not been controlled for. The UC Davis Medical Center is also a quaternary referral center, and the ED serves as a safety net for vulnerable populations and those with comorbidities of concern. Several studies have demonstrated that implementing rapid POC PCR tests can improve clinical decision-making and management of patients with respiratory infections (27, 38, 39). Shorter time to diagnosis can reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and allow for appropriate de-escalation (29, 38-41). Within the first 6 months of the pandemic, antibiotic prescribing rates for patients with COVID-19 was high (almost 75%), even in the absence of bacterial co-infection (42). In our study, though antibiotics were frequently prescribed, the rate was lower in the intervention period than in the control period, particularly in those with a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, supporting the notion that reduced time to result can improve antibiotic stewardship and help slow the emergence of antibiotic resistance (43, 44). Antiviral use was higher in the intervention period, though prescribing rates were low (<5%), likely reflecting the availability of antivirals and the stringent prescribing requirements at the time of the study. One of the major limitations of this study is that due to the real-word, pre-post study design, several epidemiological factors could not be controlled for. The control and intervention periods were very different in terms of the stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. The control period coincided largely with the first wave, which peaked at approximately 10,000 new cases/day in mid-July (45). The intervention period was initiated in November, which was the start of a surge in cases in California, with approximately 47,000 new cases/day at the end of December and >100,000 cases/day in January (45). The study may also have been impacted by seasonality, with higher rates of respiratory infections generally encountered in winter (the intervention period) (46). In addition to environmental factors, COVID-19 treatment guidelines or practices were rapidly evolving (47, 48), and the availability of effective treatments changed over time (49), making clinical comparisons challenging. Though the demographics of our patient population were not statistically different between periods, other non-collected characteristics of patients presenting to the ED may have differed (50), particularly as ED volumes were low during the beginning of the pandemic. Nevertheless, this study provides an important insight into the outcomes observed following the implementation of a rapid POC SARS-CoV-2 test at a time when new cases of COVID-19 were high. It is also important to note that while our study supports the use of POC PCR tests in an emergency care setting, high-throughput centralized testing for SARS-CoV-2 remains an important diagnostic tool for patients not in need of immediate results. In this study, system identifiers were missing from the dataset, so it was not possible to analyze TAT for the cobas 6800 or ePlex systems separately; however, it is recognized that TAT using the ePlex SARS-CoV-2 Test is shorter than the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test. The ability to perform tests on the cobas Liat System, or other POC platforms, may increase capacity for testing to be conducted on centralized systems with broader respiratory pathogen testing panels, potentially improving testing efficiency and antibiotic prescribing practices. ## Conclusion In conclusion, this study confirms that the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B test provides a considerably shorter TAT compared with centralized laboratory PCR methods, particularly those using sample batching, in a real-world emergency care setting. Decreased TAT also has the potential to reduce ED LOS in some patient populations and allows for better patient management and informed treatment decisions, in-line with improved antibiotic stewardship. ## Supporting information Supplementary Materials [[supplements/278536_file04.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article and supplementary materials. ## Funding This study was funded by Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. ## Disclosures EMR, JAC, and KC are employees of Roche Molecular Systems Inc., and EMR holds company stock. LM and NKT have received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, or advisory boards from Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., and LM has received honoraria from Roche Diagnostics Solutions. ![Figure1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/08/09/2022.08.08.22278536/F1.medium.gif) [Figure1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/08/09/2022.08.08.22278536/F1) ## Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Christopher Dodoo of Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Pleasanton, California, USA, who contributed statistical support; Jeffrey Flack of University of California, Davis, California, USA for support with dataset creation; and Babar Javed of Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Pleasanton, California, USA, who was the study manager. Medical writing support was provided by Samantha Forster of Elements Communications Ltd (Westerham, UK) and was funded by Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. In the US, the cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B test (17) is only for use under the Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization. COBAS, LIAT, EPLEX and GENMARK DX are trademarks of Roche. All other product names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. * Received August 8, 2022. * Revision received August 8, 2022. * Accepted August 9, 2022. * © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2022. COVID data tracker. [https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home](https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home). Accessed 09 May 2022. 2. 2.Singanayagam A, Hakki S, Dunning J, Madon KJ, Crone MA, Koycheva A, Derqui-Fernandez N, Barnett JL, Whitfield MG, Varro R, Charlett A, Kundu R, Fenn J, Cutajar J, Quinn V, Conibear E, Barclay W, Freemont PS, Taylor GP, Ahmad S, Zambon M, Ferguson NM, Lalvani A. 2022. Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 22:183–195. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F08%2F09%2F2022.08.08.22278536.atom) 3. 3.Elliott P, Haw D, Wang H, Eales O, Walters CE, Ainslie KEC, Atchison C, Fronterre C, Diggle PJ, Page AJ, Trotter AJ, Prosolek SJ, Ashby D, Donnelly CA, Barclay W, Taylor G, Cooke G, Ward H, Darzi A, Riley S. 2021. Exponential growth, high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, and vaccine effectiveness associated with the Delta variant. Science 374:eabl9551. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1126/science.abl9551&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F08%2F09%2F2022.08.08.22278536.atom) 4. 4.Baldanti F, Ganguly NK, Wang G, Möckel M, O’Neill LA, Renz H, Dos Santos Ferreira CE, Tateda K, Van Der Pol B. 2022. Choice of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test: challenges and key considerations for the future. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci doi:10.1080/10408363.2022.2045250:1-15. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/10408363.2022.2045250:1-15&link_type=DOI) 5. 5.Cabinet Office. 2022. Guidance: COVID-19 response: living with COVID-19, on Gov.uk. [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-response-living-with-covid-19/covid-19-response-living-with-covid-19](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-response-living-with-covid-19/covid-19-response-living-with-covid-19). Accessed 26 May 2022. 6. 6.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021. Public health recommendations for fully vaccinated people. [https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0308-vaccinated-guidelines.html](https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0308-vaccinated-guidelines.html). Accessed 26 May 2022. 7. 7.Israel Ministry of Health. 2021. Israel to life all Coronavirus restrictions, on Gov.il. [https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/23052021-02](https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/23052021-02). Accessed 26 May 2022. 8. 8.Olsen SJ, Azziz-Baumgartner E, Budd AP, Brammer L, Sullivan S, Pineda RF, Cohen C, Fry AM. 2020. Decreased influenza activity during the COVID-19 pandemic - United States, Australia, Chile, and South Africa, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 69:1305–1309. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.15585/mmwr.mm6937a6&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32941415&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F08%2F09%2F2022.08.08.22278536.atom) 9. 9.Foley DA, Yeoh DK, Minney-Smith CA, Martin AC, Mace AO, Sikazwe CT, L. H, Levy A, Moore HC, Blyth CC. 2021. The interseasonal resurgence of respiratory syncytial virus in Australian children following the reduction of coronavirus disease 2019– related public health measures. Clinical Infectious Diseases 73:e2829–e2830. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F08%2F09%2F2022.08.08.22278536.atom) 10. 10.Tanaka H, Ogata T, Shibata T, Nagai H, Takahashi Y, Kinoshita M, Matsubayashi K, Hattori S, Taniguchi C. 2022. Shorter incubation period among COVID-19 cases with the BA.1 Omicron variant. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19:6330. 11. 11.Saxena SK, Kumar S, Ansari S, Paweska JT, Maurya VK, Tripathi AK, Abdel-Moneim AS. 2022. Characterization of the novel SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of concern and its global perspective. J Med Virol 94:1738–1744. 12. 12.Stadler E, Chai KL, Schlub TE, Cromer D, Polizzotto MN, Kent SJ, Skoetz N, Estcourt L, McQuilten ZK, Wood EM, Khoury DS, Davenport MP. 2022. Determinants of passive antibody effectiveness in SARS-CoV-2 infection. medRxiv doi:10.1101/2022.03.21.22272672:2022.03.21.22272672. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1101/2022.03.21.22272672:2022.03.21.22272672&link_type=DOI) 13. 13.Soltan AAS, Yang J, Pattanshetty R, Novak A, Yang Y, Rohanian O, Beer S, Soltan MA, Thickett DR, Fairhead R, Zhu T, Eyre DW, Clifton DA, Collaborative CT. 2022. Real-world evaluation of rapid and laboratory-free COVID-19 triage for emergency care: external validation and pilot deployment of artificial intelligence driven screening. Lancet Digit Health 4:e266–e278. 14. 14.Mostafa HH, Hardick J, Morehead E, Miller JA, Gaydos CA, Manabe YC. 2020. Comparison of the analytical sensitivity of seven commonly used commercial SARS-CoV-2 automated molecular assays. J Clin Virol 130:104578. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104578&link_type=DOI) 15. 15.Dancer SJ. 2021. Reducing the risk of COVID-19 transmission in hospitals: focus on additional infection control strategies. Surgery (Oxford, Oxfordshire) 39:752–758. 16. 16.El Tawil C, El Hussein M, Souaiby N, Helou M. 2022. Emergency department management of COVID-19 suspected patients. An international perspective. Int J Public Health 67:1604534. 17. 17.Roche Molecular Systems Inc. 2022. Instructions for use: cobas® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B Nucleic acid test for use on the cobas® Liat® System. v3.0. 18. 18.GenMark Diagnostics I. 2020. ePlex®SARS-CoV-2 Test assay manual. [https://www.fda.gov/media/136282/download](https://www.fda.gov/media/136282/download). Accessed 31 May 2022. 19. 19.Roche Molecular Systems. 2022. Instructions for use: cobas® SARS-CoV-2: qualitative assay for use on the cobas® 6800/8800 Systems v8.0. 20. 20.Roche molecular Systems I. 2015. cobas® 6800/8800 Systems: systems specifications. 21. 21.UC Davis Health News. 2020. UC Davis Health speeds up COVID-19 testing. <[https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/uc-davis-health-speeds-up-covid-19-testing/2020/04](https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/uc-davis-health-speeds-up-covid-19-testing/2020/04)>. Accessed 23 Jun 2022. 22. 22.Zhen W, Smith E, Manji R, Schron D, Berry GJ. 2020. Clinical evaluation of three sample-to-answer platforms for detection of SARS-CoV-2. J Clin Microbiol 58:e00783–20. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F08%2F09%2F2022.08.08.22278536.atom) 23. 23.Roche Diagnostics Limited. 2022. Product information: ePlex® System. <[https://diagnostics.roche.com/global/en/products/systems/eplex-system.html](https://diagnostics.roche.com/global/en/products/systems/eplex-system.html). Accessed 4 August 2022>. 24. 24.SAS Institute Inc. 2013. The SAS®System for Linux, v9.4. Cary, NC, USA. 25. 25.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2022. Defining adult overweight and obesity [https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/basics/adult-defining.html](https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/basics/adult-defining.html). Accessed 7 June 2022. 26. 26.Tsang HF, Leung WMS, Chan LWC, Cho WCS, Wong SCC. 2021. Performance comparison of the Cobas® Liat® and Cepheid® GeneXpert® systems on SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal swab and posterior oropharyngeal saliva. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 21:515–518. 27. 27.Hansen G, Marino J, Wang ZX, Beavis KG, Rodrigo J, Labog K, Westblade LF, Jin R, Love N, Ding K, Garg S, Huang A, Sickler J, Tran NK. 2021. Clinical performance of the point-of-care cobas Liat for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in 20 minutes: a multicenter study. J Clin Microbiol 59:e02811–20. 28. 28.Möckel M, Bolanaki M, Hofmann J, Stein A, Hitzek J, Holert F, Fischer-Rosinský A, Slagman A. 2022. SARS-CoV-2 screening in patients in need of urgent inpatient treatment in the Emergency Department (ED) by digitally integrated point-of-care PCR: a clinical cohort study. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 102:115637. 29. 29.Egilmezer E, Walker GJ, Bakthavathsalam P, Peterson JR, Gooding JJ, Rawlinson W, Stelzer-Braid S. 2018. Systematic review of the impact of point-of-care testing for influenza on the outcomes of patients with acute respiratory tract infection. Rev Med Virol 28:e1995. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/rmv.1995&link_type=DOI) 30. 30.Jeong HW, Heo JY, Park JS, Kim WJ. 2014. Effect of the influenza virus rapid antigen test on a physician’s decision to prescribe antibiotics and on patient length of stay in the emergency department. PLoS One 9:e110978–e110978. 31. 31.Jun S-H, Kim J-Y, Yoon Y-H, Lim C-S, Ch H-J, Choi S-H. 2016. The effect of the rapid antigen test for influenza on clinical practice in the emergency department: a comparison of periods before and after the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Signa Vitae 11:74–89. 32. 32.Our World in Data. 2022. Share of SARS-CoV-2 sequences that are the delta variant. [https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus#coronavirus-country-profiles](https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus#coronavirus-country-profiles). Accessed 4 July 2022. 33. 33.Ohsfeldt RL, Choong CK, Mc Collam PL, Abedtash H, Kelton KA, Burge R. 2021. Inpatient hospital costs for COVID-19 patients in the United States. Adv Ther 38:5557–5595. 34. 34.Di Fusco M, Shea KM, Lin J, Nguyen JL, Angulo FJ, Benigno M, Malhotra D, Emir B, Sung AH, Hammond JL, Stoychev S, Charos A. 2021. Health outcomes and economic burden of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States. J Med Econ 24:308–317. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/13696998.2021.1886109&link_type=DOI) 35. 35.Boehm E, Kronig I, Neher RA, Eckerle I, Vetter P, Kaiser L. 2021. Novel SARS-CoV-2 variants: the pandemics within the pandemic. Clin Microbiol Infect 27:1109–1117. 36. 36.McPadden J, Warner F, Young HP, Hurley NC, Pulk RA, Singh A, Durant TJS, Gong G, Desai N, Haimovich A, Taylor RA, Gunel M, Dela Cruz CS, Farhadian SF, Siner J, Villanueva M, Churchwell K, Hsiao A, Torre CJ, Jr.., Velazquez EJ, Herbst RS, Iwasaki A, Ko AI, Mortazavi BJ, Krumholz HM, Schulz WL. 2021. Clinical characteristics and outcomes for 7,995 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. PLoS One 16:e0243291–e0243291. 37. 37.Russell FM, Wang A, Ehrman RR, Jacobs J, Croft A, Larsen C. 2021. Risk factors associated with hospital admission in COVID-19 patients initially admitted to an observation unit. Am J Emerg Med 46:339–343. 38. 38.Hansen GT, Moore J, Herding E, Gooch T, Hirigoyen D, Hanson K, Deike M. 2018. Clinical decision making in the emergency department setting using rapid PCR: results of the CLADE study group. J Clin Virol 102:42–49. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jcv.2018.02.013&link_type=DOI) 39. 39.van Rijn AL, Nijhuis RHT, Bekker V, Groeneveld GH, Wessels E, Feltkamp MCW, Claas ECJ. 2018. Clinical implications of rapid ePlex® Respiratory Pathogen Panel testing compared to laboratory-developed real-time PCR. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 37:571–577. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10096-017-3151-0&link_type=DOI) 40. 40.Benirschke RC, McElvania E, Thomson RB, Jr.., Kaul KL, Das S. 2019. Clinical impact of rapid point-of-care PCR influenza testing in an urgent care setting: a single-center study. J Clin Microbiol 57:e01281–18. 41. 41.Pedersen CJ, Rogan DT, Yang S, Quinn JV. 2018. Using a novel rapid viral test to improve triage of emergency department patients with acute respiratory illness during flu season. J Clin Virol 108:72–76. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jcv.2018.09.008&link_type=DOI) 42. 42.Langford BJ, So M, Raybardhan S, Leung V, Soucy JR, Westwood D, Daneman N, MacFadden DR. 2021. Antibiotic prescribing in patients with COVID-19: rapid review and meta-analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect 27:520–531. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F08%2F09%2F2022.08.08.22278536.atom) 43. 43.World Health Organization. 2012. The evolving threat of antimicrobial resistance: options for action, on World Health Organization. [https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44812](https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44812) Accessed 30 June 2022. 44. 44.File TM, Jr.., Srinivasan A, Bartlett JG 2014. Antimicrobial stewardship: importance for patient and public health. Clin Infect Dis 59 Suppl 3:S93–S96. 45. 45.USAFacts 2022. California coronavirus cases and deaths. [https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spread-map/state/california](https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spread-map/state/california). Accessed 9 June 2022. 46. 46.Price RHM, Graham C, Ramalingam S 2019. Association between viral seasonality and meteorological factors. Sci Rep 9:929–929. 47. 47.National Institutes of Health. April 29, 2022 2022. COVID-19 treatment guidelines. [https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/about-the-guidelines/guidelines-development/](https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/about-the-guidelines/guidelines-development/). Accessed 13 June 2022. 48. 48.Lee CK, Merriam LT, Pearson JC, Lipnick MS, McKleroy W, Kim EY. 2022. Treating COVID-19: Evolving approaches to evidence in a pandemic. Cell Rep Med 3:100533. 49. 49.Cascella M, Rajnik M, Aleem A, Dulebohn SC, R DN. May 4, 2022 2022. Features, evaluation, and treatment of coronavirus (COVID-19), on StatPearls Publishing. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554776/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554776/). Accessed 15 June 2022. 50. 50.Matsunaga N, Hayakawa K, Asai Y, Tsuzuki S, Terada M, Suzuki S, Ohtsu H, Kitajima K, Toyoda A, Suzuki K, Suzuki M, Saito S, Uemura Y, Shibata T, Kondo M, Nakamura-Uchiyama F, Yokota K, Saito F, Izumi K, Sugiura W, Ohmagari N. 2022. Clinical characteristics of the first three waves of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in Japan prior to the widespread use of vaccination: a nationwide observational study. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 22:100421.