Objectives The clinical performance of the BD Veritor™ System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (Veritor), a chromatographic immunoassay used for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care testing, was evaluated using nasal specimens from individuals with COVID-19 symptoms.
Methods: Two studies were completed to determine clinical performance. In the first study, nasal specimens and either nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal specimens from 251 participants with COVID-19 symptoms (≤7 days from symptom onset [DSO]), ≥18 years of age, were utilized to compare Veritor with the Lyra® SARS-CoV-2 PCR Assay (Lyra). In the second study, nasal specimens from 361 participants with COVID-19 symptoms (≤5 DSO), ≥18 years of age, were utilized to compare performance of Veritor to that of the Sofia® 2 SARS Antigen FIA test (Sofia 2). Positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (PPA, NPA, and OPA, respectively) were the primary outcomes.
Results: In study 1, PPA for Veritor, compared to Lyra, ranged from 81.8%-87.5% for 0-1 through 0-6 DSO ranges. In study 2, Veritor had a PPA, NPA, and OPA of 97.4%, 98.1%, and 98.1%, respectively, with Sofia 2. Discordant analysis showed one Lyra positive missed by Veritor and five Lyra positives missed by Sofia 2; one Veritor positive result was negative by Lyra.
Conclusions: Veritor met FDA-EUA acceptance criteria for SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing (≥80% PPA point estimate) for the 0-5 and 0-6 DSO ranges. Veritor and Sofia 2 showed a high degree of agreement for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The Veritor test allows for more rapid COVID-19 testing utilizing easy-to-collect nasal swabs, but demonstrated less than 100% PPA compared to PCR..
The prompt and accurate identification of bacterial pathogens is fundamental to patient health and outcome. Recent advances in matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) have revolutionized bacterial identification in the clinical laboratory, but uniform incorporation of this technology in the U.S. market has been delayed by a lack of FDA-cleared systems. In this study, we conducted a multicenter evaluation of the MALDI Biotyper CA (MBT-CA) System (Bruker Daltonics Inc, Billerica, MA) for the identification of aerobic gram-negative bacteria as part of a 510(k) submission to the FDA. A total of 2,263 aerobic gram negative bacterial isolates were tested representing 23 genera and 61 species. Isolates were collected from various clinical sources and results obtained from the MBT-CA System were compared to DNA sequencing and/or biochemical testing. Isolates that failed to report as a "high confidence species ID" [log(score) ≥2.00] were re-tested using an extraction method. The MBT-CA System identified 96.8% and 3.1% of isolates with either a "high confidence" or a "low confidence" [log(score) value between 1.70 and <2.00] species ID, respectively. Two isolates did not produce acceptable confidence scores after extraction. The MBT-CA System correctly identified 99.8% (2,258/2,263) to genus and 98.2% (2,222/2,263) to species level. These data demonstrate that the MBT-CA System provides accurate results for the identification of aerobic gram-negative bacteria.
The Bruker MALDI Biotyper CA System accurately identifies most clinically important bacteria and yeasts and has optional processing methods to improve isolate characterization.
AimsPoint-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.MethodsStaffing, 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.