Diagnostic accuracy of the Abbott ID NOW SARS-CoV-2 rapid test for the triage of acute medical admissions

Background: Decisions to isolate patients at risk of having coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the emergency department (ED) must be rapid and accurate to ensure prompt treatment and maintain patient flow whilst minimising nosocomial spread. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays are too slow to achieve this, and near-patient testing is being used increasingly to facilitate triage. The ID NOW severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay is an isothermal nucleic acid amplification near-patient test which targets the RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase gene. Aim: To assess the diagnostic performance of ID NOW as a COVID-19 triage tool for medical admissions from the ED of a large acute hospital. Methods: All adult acute medical admissions from the ED between 31st March and 31st July 2021 with valid ID NOW and RT-PCR results were included. The diagnostic accuracy of ID NOW [sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV)] was calculated against the laboratory reference standard. Discrepant results were explored further using cycle threshold values and clinical data. Findings: Two percent (124/6050) of medical admissions were SARS-CoV-2 positive on RT-PCR. Compared with PCR, ID NOW had sensitivity and specificity of 83.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 75.4–88.7] and 99.5% (95% CI 99.3–99.6), respectively. PPV and NPV were 76.9% (95% CI 69.0–83.2) and 99.6% (95% CI 99.5–99.8), respectively. The median time from arrival in the ED to ID NOW result was 59 min. Conclusion: ID NOW provides a rapid and reliable adjunct for the safe triage of patients with COVID-19, and can work effectively when integrated into an ED triage algorithm

Exploring the views of infection consultants in England on a novel delinked funding model for antimicrobials: the SMASH study

OBJECTIVES: A novel ‘subscription-type’ funding model was launched in England in July 2022 for ceftazidime/avibactam and cefiderocol. We explored the views of infection consultants on important aspects of the delinked antimicrobial funding model. METHODS: An online survey was sent to all infection consultants in NHS acute hospitals in England. RESULTS: The response rate was 31.2% (235/753). Most consultants agreed the model is a welcome development (69.8%, 164/235), will improve treatment of drug-resistant infections (68.5%, 161/235) and will stimulate research and development of new antimicrobials (57.9%, 136/235). Consultants disagreed that the model would lead to reduced carbapenem use and reported increased use of cefiderocol post-implementation. The presence of an antimicrobial pharmacy team, requirement for preauthorization by infection specialists, antimicrobial stewardship ward rounds and education of infection specialists were considered the most effective antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Under the new model, 42.1% (99/235) of consultants would use these antimicrobials empirically, if risk factors for antimicrobial resistance were present (previous infection, colonization, treatment failure with carbapenems, ward outbreak, recent admission to a high-prevalence setting). Significantly higher insurance and diversity values were given to model antimicrobials compared with established treatments for carbapenem-resistant infections, while meropenem recorded the highest enablement value. Use of both ‘subscription-type’ model drugs for a wide range of infection sites was reported. Respondents prioritized ceftazidime/avibactam for infections by bacteria producing OXA-48 and KPC and cefiderocol for those producing MBLs and infections with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Acinetobacter spp. and Burkholderia cepacia. CONCLUSIONS: The ‘subscription-type’ model was viewed favourably by infection consultants in England

Exploring the views of infection consultants in England on a novel delinked funding model for antimicrobials: the SMASH study

OBJECTIVES: A novel 'subscription-type' funding model was launched in England in July 2022 for ceftazidime/avibactam and cefiderocol. We explored the views of infection consultants on important aspects of the delinked antimicrobial funding model. METHODS: An online survey was sent to all infection consultants in NHS acute hospitals in England. RESULTS: The response rate was 31.2% (235/753). Most consultants agreed the model is a welcome development (69.8%, 164/235), will improve treatment of drug-resistant infections (68.5%, 161/235) and will stimulate research and development of new antimicrobials (57.9%, 136/235). Consultants disagreed that the model would lead to reduced carbapenem use and reported increased use of cefiderocol post-implementation. The presence of an antimicrobial pharmacy team, requirement for preauthorization by infection specialists, antimicrobial stewardship ward rounds and education of infection specialists were considered the most effective antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Under the new model, 42.1% (99/235) of consultants would use these antimicrobials empirically, if risk factors for antimicrobial resistance were present (previous infection, colonization, treatment failure with carbapenems, ward outbreak, recent admission to a high-prevalence setting).Significantly higher insurance and diversity values were given to model antimicrobials compared with established treatments for carbapenem-resistant infections, while meropenem recorded the highest enablement value. Use of both 'subscription-type' model drugs for a wide range of infection sites was reported. Respondents prioritized ceftazidime/avibactam for infections by bacteria producing OXA-48 and KPC and cefiderocol for those producing MBLs and infections with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Acinetobacter spp. and Burkholderia cepacia. CONCLUSIONS: The 'subscription-type' model was viewed favourably by infection consultants in England