Molecular rapid test may provides an alternative to time-consuming PCR tests. There is a continuing need for reliable molecular rapid test detection methods to be quick and easy applied to individuals with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Features ability of molecular rapid test should be considered and compared with the gold standard Real-timePolymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test for diagnosis of COVID-19 cases. In this research, the goal was to analyze the ability of ID Now. Molecular rapid test (ID Now) was compared with the real-time RT-PCR test for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal. ID NOW works with isothermal nucleic acid amplification for the qualitative detection of the Rdrp gene. Otherwise, RT-PCR detects gene N, gene E, and Orf1ab from SARS-CoV-2 for virus identification or quantification of viral load. One hundred thirty six (from nasopharyngeal swabs) were get from COVID-19 suspected cases and exposed individuals in three hospitals: Universitas Brawijaya Hospital Malang, Baptis Hospital, and Regional Hospital Lawang, east Java, Indonesia, during May 2021. A total of 136 samples, 66 samples were positive, and 70 sampels were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by ID Now. Comprehensively, sensitivity and specificity were 98.4% (95% confidence interval 91 – 100%) and 92% (95% confidence interval 85-92%), respectively, PPV 90,9% NPV 98,6% with a diagnostic accuracy of 94% and Kappa coefficient of 0.89. Molecular rapid test (ID Now) showed good sensitivity and specificity. This test can be used for the early detection and rapid diagnosis of SARS CoV-2.

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/3uhp2Ay
2. Y.-P. Tu, J. Iqbal, and T. O’Leary, “Evaluation of ID NOW and RT-PCR for detection of SARSCoV-2 in an ambulatory population,” medRxiv, pp.
   1–33, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.07.20245225
3. H. H. Mostafa, J. Hardick, E. Morehead, J.-A. Miller, C. A. Gaydos, and Y. C. Manabe, “Comparison of the analytical sensitivity of seven commonly used commercial SARS-CoV-2 automated molecular assays,” Journal of Clinical Virology, vol. 130, pp. 1–4, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104578
4. B. Yanti, F. D. Ismida, and K. E. S. Sarah, “The difference between antigen, antibody, RT-PCR and molecular rapid tests for coronavirus disease 2019,”Jurnal Kedokteran Syiah Kuala, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 172–177, 202. doi: https://doi.org/10.24815/jks.v20i3.18719
5. Cepheid. (2021) Xpert R Xpress SARS-CoV-2. [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/3Gl1Rrv
6. GeneReach Biotechnology Corp. (2021) POCKITTM Central Nucleic Acid Analyzer. [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/3utTdED
7. M. C. Smithgall, I. Scherberkova, S. Whittier, and D. A. Green, “Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2,” Journal of Clinical Virology, vol. 128, pp. 1–4, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104428
8. Abbott. ID NOWTM COVID-19. [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/3utUz2b
9. B. B. Abate, A. M. Kassie, M. W. Kassaw, T. G. Aragie, and S. A. Masresha, “Sex difference in coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis,” BMJ Open, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1–10, 2020. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040129
10. H. Luo, S. Liu, Y. Wang, P. A. Phillips-Howard, S. Ju, Y. Yang, and D. Wang, “Age differences in clinical features and outcomes in patients with
    COVID-19, Jiangsu, China: A retrospective, multicentre cohort study,” BMJ Open, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1–9, 2020. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039887
11. S. Singhal, P. Kumar, S. Singh, S. Saha, and A. B. Dey, “Clinical features and outcomes of COVID19 in older adults: A systematic review and metaanalysis,” BMC Geriatrics, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2021.
12. E. Farfour, M. Asso-Bonnet, and M. Vasse, “The ID NOW COVID-19, a high-speed high-performance assay,” European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 2041–2045, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04243-0
13. A. Basu, T. Zinger, K. Inglima, K.-m. Woo, O. Atie, L. Yurasits, B. See, and M. E. Aguero-Rosenfeld, “Performance of Abbott ID Now COVID-19 rapid nucleic acid amplification test using nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral transport media and dry nasal swabs in a New York city academic institution,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 1–7, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01136-20
14. M. Ghofrani, M. T. Casas, R. K. Pelz, C. Kroll, N. Blum, and S. D. Foster, “Performance characteristics of the ID NOW COVID-19 assay: A regional health care system experience,” MedRxiv, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.03.20116327
15. W. Stokes, B. M. Berenger, T. Singh, I. Adeghe, A. Schneider, D. Portnoy, T. King, B. Scott, K. Pabbaraju, and S. Shokoples, “Acceptable performance of the Abbott ID NOW among symptomatic individuals with confirmed COVID-19,” Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 1–4, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001372
16. P. M. Thwe and P. Ren, “How many are we missing with ID NOW COVID-19 assay using direct nasopharyngeal swabs? Findings from a mid-sized academic hospital clinical microbiology laboratory,” Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 1–3, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2020.115123

A. Iskandar, H. Susianti, S. Ramadhani, D. S. Ningtyas, V. M. Iriane, R. A. Dimpudus, and E. Aryanti, “Evaluation of swab diagnostic performance for suspected Covid-19 patients using ID now,” International Journal of Health and Medical Sciences, vol. 8, pp. 1-5, 2022. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.20469/ijhms.8.30001