Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 71(12): 3204-3213, 2020 12 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-637669

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the greater New York metropolitan area became an epicenter for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The initial evolution of case incidence has not been well characterized. METHODS: Northwell Health Laboratories tested 46 793 persons for SARS-CoV-2 from 4 March through 10 April. The primary outcome measure was a positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2. The secondary outcomes included patient age, sex, and race, if stated; dates the specimen was obtained and the test result; clinical practice site sources; geolocation of patient residence; and hospitalization. RESULTS: From 8 March through 10 April, a total of 26 735 of 46 793 persons (57.1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Males of each race were disproportionally more affected than females above age 25, with a progressive male predominance as age increased. Of the positive persons, 7292 were hospitalized directly upon presentation; an additional 882 persons tested positive in an ambulatory setting before subsequent hospitalization, a median of 4.8 days later. Total hospitalization rate was thus 8174 persons (30.6% of positive persons). There was a broad range (>10-fold) in the cumulative number of positive cases across individual zip codes following documented first caseincidence. Test positivity was greater for persons living in zip codes with lower annual household income. CONCLUSIONS: Our data reveal that SARS-CoV-2 incidence emerged rapidly and almost simultaneously across a broad demographic population in the region. These findings support the premise that SARS-CoV-2 infection was widely distributed prior to virus testing availability.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Incidence , Male , New York
3.
J Clin Microbiol ; 58(9)2020 08 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-610627

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in December 2019 and has quickly become a worldwide pandemic. In response, many diagnostic manufacturers have developed molecular assays for SARS-CoV-2 under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) pathway. This study compared three of these assays, the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay (Fusion), the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay (Aptima), and the BioFire Defense COVID-19 test (BioFire), to determine analytical and clinical performance as well as workflow. All three assays showed similar limits of detection (LODs) using inactivated virus, with 100% detection, ranging from 500 to 1,000 genome equivalents/ml, whereas use of a quantified RNA transcript standard showed the same trend but had values ranging from 62.5 to 125 copies/ml, confirming variability in absolute quantification of reference standards. The clinical correlation found that the Fusion and BioFire assays had a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 98.7%, followed by the Aptima assay at 94.7%, compared to the consensus result. All three assays exhibited 100% negative percent agreement (NPA). Analysis of discordant results revealed that all four samples missed by the Aptima assay had cycle threshold (Ct ) values of >37 by the Fusion assay. In conclusion, while all three assays showed similar relative LODs, we showed differences in absolute LODs depending on which standard was employed. In addition, the Fusion and BioFire assays showed better clinical performance, while the Aptima assay showed a modest decrease in overall PPA. These findings should be kept in mind when making platform testing decisions.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Pandemics , RNA, Viral/analysis , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , United States Food and Drug Administration
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL