Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Special Issue Letter to the Editor

Comparison of Abbott ID Now, DiaSorin Simplexa, and CDC FDA Emergency Use Authorization Methods for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Nasopharyngeal and Nasal Swabs from Individuals Diagnosed with COVID-19

Daniel D. Rhoads, Sree S. Cherian, Katharine Roman, Lisa M. Stempak, Christine L. Schmotzer, Navid Sadri
Alexander J. McAdam, Editor
Daniel D. Rhoads
aDepartment of Pathology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
bDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Daniel D. Rhoads
Sree S. Cherian
aDepartment of Pathology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
bDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Katharine Roman
aDepartment of Pathology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lisa M. Stempak
aDepartment of Pathology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
bDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christine L. Schmotzer
aDepartment of Pathology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
bDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Navid Sadri
aDepartment of Pathology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
bDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander J. McAdam
Boston Children’s Hospital
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00760-20
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

LETTER

Dozens of in vitro diagnostics (IVDs) have received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but how well these assays perform using clinical specimens has hardly been studied. This study compared the positive percent agreement (PPA) of ID Now (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) and Simplexa (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy) using a modified CDC method as the reference standard (1). All three methods are used as part of standard of care testing within our hospital system. Ninety-six remnant clinical specimens from April 2020 that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using standard of care testing were selected based on convenience and retested using the three methods. Fourteen negative controls (universal transport medium [UTM]) were included to control for carryover contamination. Specimens included 11 supervised self-collected nasal swabs in 2 ml normal saline and 85 provider-collected nasopharyngeal swabs in 3 ml UTM. The online Medcalc tool (https://www.medcalc.org/calc/diagnostic_test.php) was used to determine the exact Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). It is well documented that IVDs for SARS-CoV-2 can return false-negative results in individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (2), and our study did not attempt to determine the clinical sensitivity of these assays.

The instructions for use (IFU) were followed for all methods with the exception that nasal swabs in saline were included, but these specimens are not explicitly described as acceptable in all of the assays’ IFU. Other deviations from the IFU for the CDC method include the following: (i) using 7500 Fast instead of 7500 Fast Dx instrument, (ii) using an alternate RNA extraction method (Maxwell RSC instrument with viral TNA kit [catalog no. AS1330; Promega, Madison, WI, USA]), and (iii) interpreting “inconclusive” (one positive target) results as “detected.”

The results are shown in Table 1. The modified CDC assay detected SARS-CoV-2 in all 96 specimens (range of threshold cycle [CT] values, 11.1 to 39.6). The ID Now assay detected SARS-CoV-2 in 90 of 96 specimens (PPA, 94% [95% CI, 87 to 98%]). The Simplexa assay detected SARS-CoV-2 in 92 of 96 specimens (PPA, 96% [95% CI, 90 to 99%]) (range of CT values, 9.3 to 34.5).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 1

Positive percent agreement (PPA) of the Abbott ID Now and DiaSorin Simplexa assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 was determined using a modified CDC assay as the reference standard

The modified CDC assay detected both N1 and N2 targets in 94 of 96 specimens. In the other two specimens, the modified CDC assay detected only one of its two targets at ≥39 CT, and SARS-CoV-2 was not detected using ID Now and Simplexa in these two specimens. In six other specimens, SARS-CoV-2 was not detected by only one of the assays; both targets in the modified CDC assay were detected at ≥32 CT in these six specimens. Strong correlation of CT values was observed when plotting the modified CDC assay N1 and N2 targets against the Simplexa S and Orf1ab targets (R2 = 0.89 to 0.91).

In summary, the 95% CIs for the PPA were overlapping for the ID Now and Simplexa assays when using the modified CDC method as the reference standard. The sample size of this study was not large enough to conclude that one of these assays had clearly superior or inferior performance for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from upper respiratory specimens in liquid transport medium. In addition to an assay’s limit of detection and sensitivity, considerations of other important variables such as turnaround time, complexity, cost, workflow, specimen type and stability, and availability of supplies, reagents, and equipment may influence selection of a health system’s standard of care IVD that is implemented to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

No outside funding was used to support this investigation.

  • Copyright © 2020 Rhoads et al.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Biswas B
    . 2016. Clinical performance evaluation of molecular diagnostic tests. J Mol Diagn 18:803–812. doi:10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.06.008.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Fang Y,
    2. Zhang H,
    3. Xie J,
    4. Lin M,
    5. Ying L,
    6. Pang P,
    7. Ji W
    . 19 February 2020. Sensitivity of chest CT for COVID-19: comparison to RT-PCR. Radiology doi:10.1148/radiol.2020200432.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Comparison of Abbott ID Now, DiaSorin Simplexa, and CDC FDA Emergency Use Authorization Methods for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Nasopharyngeal and Nasal Swabs from Individuals Diagnosed with COVID-19
Daniel D. Rhoads, Sree S. Cherian, Katharine Roman, Lisa M. Stempak, Christine L. Schmotzer, Navid Sadri
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jul 2020, 58 (8) e00760-20; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00760-20

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of Abbott ID Now, DiaSorin Simplexa, and CDC FDA Emergency Use Authorization Methods for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Nasopharyngeal and Nasal Swabs from Individuals Diagnosed with COVID-19
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparison of Abbott ID Now, DiaSorin Simplexa, and CDC FDA Emergency Use Authorization Methods for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Nasopharyngeal and Nasal Swabs from Individuals Diagnosed with COVID-19
Daniel D. Rhoads, Sree S. Cherian, Katharine Roman, Lisa M. Stempak, Christine L. Schmotzer, Navid Sadri
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jul 2020, 58 (8) e00760-20; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00760-20
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • LETTER
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

COVID-19
nucleic acid amplification
SARS-CoV-2
coronavirus
emergency use authorization
in vitro diagnostic
virology

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X