Dramatic impact of rapid point of care nucleic acid testing for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a clinical validation trial and implementation study
Authors: Collier Dami , Assennato Sonny M. , Warne Ben , Sithole Nyarie , Sharrocks Katherine , Ritchie Allyson , Ravji Pooja , Routledge Matthew , Sparkes Dominic , Skittrall Jordan , Smielewska Anna , Ramsey Isobel , Goel Neha , Curran Martin , Enoch David , Tassell Rhys , Lineham Michelle , Vaghela Devan , Leong Clare , Mok Hoi Ping , Bradley John , Smith Kenneth GC , Mendoza Vivienne , Demiris Nikos , Besser Martin , Dougan Gordon , Lehner Paul J. , Siedner Mark J. , Zhang Hongyi , Waddington Claire S. , Lee Helen , Gupta Ravindra K. ,   and the CITIID-NIHR COVID BioResource Collaboration
Published: June 2020

Background

There is urgent need for safe and efficient triage protocols for hospitalized COVID-19 suspects to appropriate isolation wards. A major barrier to timely discharge of patients from the emergency room and hospital is the turnaround time for many SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests. We validated a point of care nucleic acid amplification based platform SAMBA II for diagnosis of COVID-19 and performed an implementation study to assess its impact on patient disposition at a major academic hospital.

Methods

We prospectively recruited COVID-19 suspects admitted to hospital (NCT04326387). In an initial pilot phase, individuals were tested using a nasal/throat swab with the SAMBA II SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic platform in parallel with a combined nasal/throat swab for standard central laboratory RT-PCR testing. In the second implementation phase, we examined the utility of adding the SAMBA platform to routine care. In the pilot phase, we measured concordance and assay validity using the central laboratory as the reference standard and assessed assay turnaround time. In the implementation phase, we assessed 1) time to definitive bed placement from admission, 2) time spent on COVID-19 holding wards, 3) proportion of patients in isolation versus COVID negative areas following a test, comparing the implementation phase with the 10 days prior to implementation.

Results

In phase I, 149 participants were included in the pilot. By central laboratory RT-PCR testing, 32 (21.5%) tested positive and 117 (78.5%). Sensitivity and specificity of the SAMBA assay compared to 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 SARS-CoV-2 test 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 implementation phase, we conducted 992 tests, with the majority (59.8%) used for hospital admission, and the remainder for pre-operative screening (11.3%), discharge planning (10%), in-hospital screening of new symptoms (9.7%). Comparing the pre-implementation (n=599) with the implementation phase, median time to definitive bed placement from admission was reduced from 23.4 hours (8.6-41.9) to 17.1 hours (9.0-28.8), P=0.02 in Cox analysis, adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities and clinical severity at presentation. Mean length of stay on a COVID-19 ‘holding’ ward decreased from 58.5 hours to 29.9 hours (P<0.001). Use of single occupancy rooms amongst those tested fell from 30.8% before to 21.2% (P=0.03) and 11 hospital bay closures (on average 6 beds each) were avoided after implementation of the POC assay.

Conclusions

The SAMBA II SARS-CoV-2 rapid assay performed well compared to a centralized laboratory RT-PCR platform and demonstrated shorter time to result both in trial and real-world settings. It was also associated with faster time to definitive bed placement from the emergency room, greater availability of isolation rooms, avoidance of hospital bay closures, and greater movement of patients to COVID negative open “green” category wards. Rapid testing in hospitals has the potential to transform ability to deal with the COVID-19 epidemic.