4.1 Article

Rapid Implementation of a SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Quantitative Real-Time PCR Test with Emergency Use Authorization at a Large Academic Safety Net Hospital

期刊

MED
卷 1, 期 1, 页码 152-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.medj.2020.05.001

关键词

-

资金

  1. Boston University School of Medicine
  2. National Institutes of Health, Boston Medical Center
  3. Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MASS CPR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Significant delays in the rapid development and distribution of diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection have prevented adequate public health management of the disease, impacting the timely mapping of viral spread and the conservation of personal protective equipment. Furthermore, vulnerable populations, such as those served by the Boston Medical Center (BMC), the largest safety net hospital in New England, represent a high-risk group across multiple dimensions, including a higher prevalence of pre-existing conditions and substance use disorders, lower health maintenance, unstable housing, and a propensity tor rapid community spread, highlighting the urgent need for expedient and re able in-house testing. Methods: We developed a SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic medium-throughput qRT-PCR assay with rapid turnaround time and utilized this Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified assay for testing nasopharyngeal swab samples from BMC patients, with emergency authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Massachusetts Department of Pubic Health. Findings: The in-house testing platform displayed robust accuracy and reliability in validation studies and reduced institutional sample turn-around time from 5-7 days to less than 24 h. Of over 1,000 unique patient samples tested, 44.1 % were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusions: This work provides a blueprint for academic centers and community hospitals lacking automated laboratory machinery to implement rapid in-house testing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据