A 10-year experience of our automated molecular diagnostic platform that carries out 91 different real-time PCR is described. Progresses and future perspectives in molecular diagnostic microbiology are reviewed: why automation is important; how our platform was implemented; how homemade PCRs were developed; the advantages/disadvantages of homemade PCRs, including the critical aspects of troubleshooting and the need to further reduce the turnaround time for specific samples, at least for defined clinical settings such as emergencies. The future of molecular diagnosis depends on automation, and in a novel perspective, it is time now to fully acknowledge the true contribution of molecular diagnostic and to reconsider the indication for PCR, by also using these tests as first-line assays.

Following the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) authorization of the rapid antigen test (RAT), we implemented the use of the RAT in the emergency ward of our university hospital for patients’ cohorting. RAT triaging in association with RT-PCR allowed us to promptly isolate positive patients and save resources. Among 532 patients, overall sensitivities were 48.3% for Exdia and 41.2% for Standard Q®, PanbioTM and BD Veritor™. All RATs exhibited specificity above 99%. Sensitivity increased to 74.6%, 66.2%, 66.2% and 64.8% for Exdia, Standard Q®, PanbioTM and BD Veritor™, respectively, for viral loads above 105 copies/mL, to 100%, 97.8%, 96.6% and 95.6% for viral loads above 106 copies/mL and 100% for viral loads above 107 copies/mL. Sensitivity was significantly higher for patients with symptoms onset within four days (74.3%, 69.2%, 69.2% and 64%, respectively) versus patients with the evolution of symptoms longer than four days (36.8%, 21.1%, 21.1% and 23.7%, respectively). Among COVID-19 asymptomatic patients, sensitivity was 33%. All Immunoglobulin-A-positive patients resulted negative for RAT. The RAT might represent a useful resource in selected clinical settings as a complementary tool in RT-PCR for rapid patient triaging, but the lower sensitivity, especially in late presenters and COVID-19 asymptomatic subjects, must be taken into account.

Objectives In order to cope with the rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, we introduced on our in-house high-throughput molecular diagnostic platform (MDx Platform) a real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) to detect the SARS-CoV-2 from any clinical specimens. The aim of this study was to compare the RT-PCR results obtain with the MDx Platform and the commercial assay cobas SARS-CoV-2 (Roche) on nasopharyngeal swab and other clinical specimens including sputum, bronchial aspirate, bronchoalveolar lavage and anal swabs. Methods Samples received in our laboratory from patients suspected of COVID-19 (n = 262) were tested in parallel with our MDx platform SARS-CoV-2 PCR and with the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test. Results The overall agreement between the two tests for all samples tested was 99.24% (260/262), which corresponded to agreements of 100% (178/178) on nasopharyngeal swabs, 94.6% (42/44) on lower respiratory tract specimen with a discordant result obtain for very high cycle threshold (Ct) value and 100% (40/40) on anorectal swabs. The Ct values for nasopharyngeal swabs displayed an excellent correlation (R2>96%) between both tests. Conclusions The high agreements between the cobas SARS-CoV-2 test and the MDx platform supports the use of both methods for the diagnostic of COVID-19 on various clinical samples. Very few discrepant results may occur at very low viral load.

Saliva sampling could serve as an alternative non-invasive sample for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis while rapid antigen tests (RATs) might help to mitigate the shortage of reagents sporadically encountered with RT-PCR. Thus, in the RESTART study we compared antigen and RT-PCR testing methods on nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs and salivary samples. We conducted a prospective observational study among COVID-19 hospitalized patients between 10 December 2020 and 1 February 2021. Paired saliva and NP samples were investigated by RT-PCR (Cobas 6800, Roche-Switzerland, Basel, Switzerland) and by two rapid antigen tests: One Step Immunoassay Exdia® COVID-19 Ag (Precision Biosensor, Daejeon, Korea) and Standard Q® COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche-Switzerland). A total of 58 paired NP-saliva specimens were collected. A total of 32 of 58 (55%) patients were hospitalized in the intensive care unit, and the median duration of symptoms was 11 days (IQR 5-19). NP and salivary RT-PCR exhibited sensitivity of 98% and 69% respectively, whereas the specificity of these RT-PCRs assays was 100%. The NP RATs exhibited much lower diagnostic performance, with sensitivities of 35% and 41% for the Standard Q® and Exdia® assays, respectively, when a wet-swab approach was used (i.e., when the swab was diluted in the viral transport medium (VTM) before testing). The sensitivity of the dry-swab approach was slightly better (47%). These antigen tests exhibited very low sensitivity (4% and 8%) when applied to salivary swabs. Nasopharyngeal RT-PCR is the most accurate test for COVID-19 diagnosis in hospitalized patients. RT-PCR on salivary samples may be used when nasopharyngeal swabs are contraindicated. RATs are not appropriate for hospitalized patients.

Background: While facing a second wave in SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, in November 2020 the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) authorized the use of rapid antigen tests (RATs) in addition to the gold-standard reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Methods: We implemented the use of RAT in the emergency ward of our university hospital for rapid patients' triaging and compared performances of four different antigen tests. All results were compared to SARS-CoV-2 specific RT-PCR (reference standard). Findings: Triaging patients using RAT in association with RT-PCR allowed us to isolate promptly positive patients and to save resources, in a context of rapid RT-PCR reagents shortage. Among 532 patients with valid results, overall sensitivities were 48.3% for One Step Exdia and 41.2% for Standard Q, PanbioTM and BD Veritor. All four antigen tests exhibited specificity above 99%. Sensitivity increased up to 74.6%, 66.2%, 66.2% and 64.8% for One Step Exdia, Standard Q, Panbio, and BD Veritor respectively, when considering viral loads above 105copies/ml, up to 100%, 97.8%, 96.6% and 95.6% for viral loads above 106 copies/ml and 100% (for all tests) when considering viral loads above 107 copies/ml. Sensitivity was significantly higher for patients presenting with symptoms onset within 4 days (74.3%, 69.2%, 69.2% and 64%, respectively) versus patients with evolution of symptoms for more than 4 days (36.8%, 21.1%, 21.1% and 23.7%, respectively). Sensitivities of all RAT assays were of only 33% among hospitalized patients without COVID-19 symptoms. Interpretation: RAT might represent a useful epidemiological resource in selected clinical settings as a complementary tool to the molecular tests for rapid patients triaging, but the lower sensitivity compared to RT-PCR, especially in late presenters and subjects without COVID-19 symptoms, must be taken into account in order to correctly use RAT for triaging.