RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Rapid point of care nucleic acid testing for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a clinical trial and implementation study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.05.31.20114520
DO 10.1101/2020.05.31.20114520
A1 Collier, Dami
A1 Assennato, Sonny M.
A1 Warne, Ben
A1 Sithole, Nyarie
A1 Sharrocks, Katherine
A1 Ritchie, Allyson
A1 Ravji, Pooja
A1 Routledge, Matthew
A1 Sparkes, Dominic
A1 Skittrall, Jordan
A1 Smielewska, Anna
A1 Ramsey, Isobel
A1 Goel, Neha
A1 Curran, Martin
A1 Enoch, David
A1 Tassell, Rhys
A1 Lineham, Michelle
A1 Vaghela, Devan
A1 Leong, Clare
A1 Mok, Hoi Ping
A1 Bradley, John
A1 Smith, Kenneth GC
A1 Mendoza, Vivienne
A1 Demiris, Nikos
A1 Besser, Martin
A1 Dougan, Gordon
A1 Lehner, Paul J.
A1 Zhang, Hongyi
A1 Waddington, Claire S.
A1 Lee, Helen
A1 Gupta, Ravindra K.
A1 and the CITIID-NIHR COVID BioResource Collaboration
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/02/2020.05.31.20114520.abstract
AB Objective To compare a point of care (POC) nucleic acid amplification based platform for rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 against the standard laboratory RT-PCR test and perform an implementation study.Design prospective clinical trial (COVIDx) and observational studySetting a large UK teaching hospitalParticipants patients presenting to hospital with possible COVID-19 disease and tested on a combined nasal/throat swab using the SAMBA II SARS-CoV-2 rapid POC test and in parallel a combined nasal/throat swab for standard lab RT-PCR testing. Implementation phase participants underwent SARS-CoV-2 POC testing for a range of indications over a ten day period pre and post SAMBA II platform implementation.Main outcome measures concordance and sensitivity and specificity of POC using the lab test as the reference standard, test turnaround time in trial and implementation periods; time to definitive patient triage from ED, time spent on COVID-19 holding wards, bay closures avoided, proportions of patients in isolation rooms following test, proportions of patients able to be moved to COVID negative areas following test.Results 149 participants were included in the COVIDx trial. 32 (21.5%) tested positive and 117 (78.5%) tested negative by standard lab RT-PCR. Median age was 62.7 (IQR 37 to 79) years and 47% were male. Cohen’s kappa correlation between the index and reference tests was 0.96, 95% CI (0.91, 1.00). Sensitivity and specificity of SAMBA against the RT-PCR lab test were 96.9% (95% CI 0.838-0.999) and 99.1% (0.953-0.999) respectively. Median time to result was 2.6 hours (IQR 2.3 to 4.8) for SAMBA II and 26.4 hours (IQR 21.4 to 31.4) for the standard lab RT-PCR test (p<0.001). In the first 10 days of the SAMBA II SARS-CoV-2 test implementation for all hospital COVID-19 testing, analysis of the first 992 tests showed 59.8% of tests were used for ED patients, and the remainder were done for pre-operative screening (11.3%), discharges to nursing homes (10%), in-hospital screening of new symptoms (9.7%), screening in asymptomatic patients requiring hospital admission screening (3.8%) and access to interventions such as dialysis and chemotherapy for high risk patients (1.2%). Use of single occupancy rooms amongst those tested fell from 30.8% before to 21.2% after testing (p=0.03). 11 bay closures were avoided by use of SAMBA over ten days. The post implementation group was then compared with 599 individuals who had a standard lab RT-PCR test in the 10 days prior to SAMBA introduction. Median time to result during implementation fell from 39.4 hours (IQR 24.7-51.3) to 3.6 hours (IQR 2.6-5.8), p<0.0001 and the median time to definitive ward move from ED was significantly reduced from 24.1 hours (9.2-48.6) to 18.5 hours (10.2-28.8), p=0.002. Mean length of stay on a COVID-19 ‘holding’ ward decreased from 58.5 hours to 29.9 hours (p<0.001) compared to the 10 days prior to implementation.Conclusions SAMBA II SARS-CoV-2 rapid POC test performed as well as standard lab RT-PCR and demonstrated shorter time to result both in trial and real-world settings. It was also associated with faster time to triage from the ED, release of isolation rooms, avoidance of hospital bay closures and movement of patients to COVID negative open “green” category wards, allowed discharge to care homes and expediting access to hospital investigations and procedures. POC testing will be instrumental in mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on hospital systems by allowing rapid triage and patient movement to safe and appropriate isolation wards in the hospital. This is also likely to reduce delays in patients accessing appropriate investigation and treatment, thereby improving clinical outcomes.Study registration NCT04326387What is already known on this topic- Five assays are known to have been developed for near patient SARS CoV-2 nucleic acid testing: Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS CoV-2 (Cepheid, USA), ePlex SARS CoV-2 (GenMark, USA), ID NOW COVID-19 (Abbott, USA) and Simplexa SARS-CoV-2 (Diasorin, Italy) and SAMBA-SARS-CoV-2 (Chesterford, UK).- Compared to reference assays in stored clinical samples, Cepheid has 99% concordance with reference, ePlex 91%, ID NOW 88%, and SAMBAII 99%.- The Cepheid test requires two separate operations with use of a related computer and therefore is rather a near patient system.- There are no prospective clinical studies with POC tests, and no data on the impact of POC SARS-CoV-2 tests on patient management in hospitals.What this study adds- The POC test has much shorter clinical turnaround time both in a trial setting (N=149), and post implementation (N=992), associated with faster time to appropriate clinical triage area, and shorter periods spent in COVID-19 ‘holding’ wards, where SARS-CoV-2 results are awaited and investigation for other diseases limited.- Use of POC testing also significantly increased availability of isolation rooms and reduced unnecessary bay closures, critical as we move towards winter.- Significant numbers of patients tested negative and could therefore access diagnostics and interventions more rapidly and safely.Competing Interest StatementThis work was supported by the Wellcome Trust (Senior Research Fellowship to RKG WT108082AIA and PhD Research Fellowship to DAC; Principal Research Fellowship 210688/Z/18/Z to PJL), Addenbrookes Charitable Trust to PJL, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge BRC Clinical TrialNCT04326387Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Wellcome Trust (Senior Research Fellowship to RKG WT108082AIA and PhD Research Fellowship to DAC; Principal Research Fellowship 210688/Z/18/Z to PJL), Addenbrookes Charitable Trust to PJL, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The protocol was approved by the East of England - Essex Research Ethics Committee. HRA and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) approval was received.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.Yesdata can be obtained from the corresponding author by email at rkg20{at}cam.ac.uk