Non-structured abstract
Respiratory diseases can share many of the same symptoms, highlighting the need for timely and accurate differentiation to facilitate effective clinical management and reduce transmission. Compared with centralized testing, molecular point-of-care tests (POCT) can provide a faster time to result.
We evaluated the RT-PCR POCT Cobas® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B qualitative assay for use on the Cobas Liat® system (the Cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B test) in nasal and nasopharyngeal swab samples from 10 diverse healthcare facilities in the US. A composite comparator design consisting of three centralized tests was used to analyze SARS-CoV-2, whilst performance versus a single centralized test was used for analysis of influenza A and B. Evaluations included performance stratified by sample type (prospective/retrospective and nasal/nasopharyngeal [paired by subject]), collection method (self/healthcare worker-collected [alternated and approximately balanced], symptom status (symptomatic/asymptomatic), and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status, as well as assay inclusivity and system ease of use.
A total of 2,247 samples were tested. For SARS-CoV-2, the overall percent agreement (OPA) was 98.8% (95% CI: 97.9, 99.3) in nasal swab samples and 99.0% (95% CI: 98.2, 99.4) in nasopharyngeal swab samples. Regression analysis showed that Ct values from paired nasal and nasopharyngeal swab samples were highly correlated (correlation coefficient 0.83). The OPA was ≥99.5% (sample type dependent) and 100.0% for influenza A and B, respectively. The Cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B test was easy to use.
These results support the use of the POCT in various sample types and by various operators in the intended-use setting.
Summary statement/importance This study highlights the benefits of RT-PCR POCT, namely comparable performance to centralized testing in multiple sample types and ease of use. Utilizing assays such as the Cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B test may improve timely differentiation of respiratory diseases that share similar symptoms.
Competing Interest Statement
EMR, RB, HC, LM, and CN are employees of Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. EMR participates in Roche Connect and is a shareholder.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Roche Molecular Systems, Inc (Pleasanton, California, USA).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
NorthShore University Health System Institutional Review Board of NorthShore gave ethical approval for this work. University of Rochester, Research Subjects Review Board gave ethical approval for this work. Western IRB gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to patient confidentiality. Any access requests from qualified researchers should be submitted directly to the Ethical Committee of each participating study site.
