Clinical Ordering Practices of the SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test at a Large Academic Medical Center.
Open Forum Infect Dis
; 7(10): ofaa406, 2020 Oct.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-873050
Preprint
This scientific journal article is probably based on a previously available preprint. It has been identified through a machine matching algorithm, human confirmation is still pending.
See preprint
This scientific journal article is probably based on a previously available preprint. It has been identified through a machine matching algorithm, human confirmation is still pending.
See preprint
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
The novel severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) originated in December 2019 and has now infected almost 5 million people in the United States. In the spring of 2020, private laboratories and some hospitals began antibody testing despite limited evidence-based guidance.METHODS:
We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who received SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing from May 14, 2020, to June 15, 2020, at a large academic medical center, 1 of the first in the United States to provide antibody testing capability to individual clinicians in order to identify clinician-described indications for antibody testing compared with current expert-based guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).RESULTS:
Of 444 individual antibody test results, the 2 most commonly described testing indications, apart from public health epidemiology studies (nâ =â 223), were for patients with a now resolved COVID-19-compatible illness (nâ =â 105) with no previous molecular testing and for asymptomatic patients believed to have had a past exposure to a person with COVID-19-compatible illness (nâ =â 60). The rate of positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing among those indications consistent with current IDSA and CDC guidance was 17% compared with 5% (Pâ <â .0001) among those indications inconsistent with such guidance. Testing inconsistent with current expert-based guidance accounted for almost half of testing costs.CONCLUSIONS:
Our findings demonstrate a dissociation between clinician-described indications for testing and expert-based guidance and a significantly different rate of positive testing between these 2 groups. Clinical curiosity and patient preference appear to have played a significant role in testing decisions and substantially contributed to testing costs.
Full text:
Available
Collection:
International databases
Database:
MEDLINE
Type of study:
Experimental Studies
/
Observational study
/
Prognostic study
/
Randomized controlled trials
Language:
English
Journal:
Open Forum Infect Dis
Year:
2020
Document Type:
Article
Affiliation country:
Ofid
Similar
MEDLINE
...
LILACS
LIS