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^®, Panbio^TM 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^®, Panbio^TM 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.

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.

The 1,3-beta- d -glucan (BDG) test is used for the diagnosis of invasive candidiasis (IC) in intensive care units (ICUs). However, its utility for patient management is unclear. This study assessed the impact of BDG test results on therapeutic decisions. This was a single-center observational study conducted in an ICU over two 6-month periods. All BDG test requests for the diagnosis of IC were analyzed. Before the second period, the ICU physicians received a pocket card instruction (algorithm) for targeted BDG testing in high-risk patients.

The (1→3)-β- d -glucan (BDG) is a marker of invasive fungal infection that can be detected in serum by different commercial kits. In this study, we compared the performance of the Fungitell assay (FA), the Fungitell STAT assay (STAT), and the Wako β-glucan test (WA) for the diagnosis of invasive candidiasis (IC) in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a wide spectrum of disease, ranging from asymptomatic infection to acute respiratory distress syndrome. Some biomarkers may predict disease severity. Among them, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response has been related to severe disease. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between the anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological response and COVID-19 outcome. Demographic, clinical, and biological data from nasopharyngeal-PCR confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized patients were prospectively collected between April and August 2020 at our institution. All patients had serial weekly serology testing for a maximum of three blood samples or until discharge. Two different serological assays were used: a chemiluminescent assay and an in-house developed Luminex immunoassay. Kinetics of the serological response and correlation between the antibody titers and outcome were assessed. Among the 70 patients enrolled in the study, 22 required invasive ventilation, 29 required non-invasive ventilation or oxygen supplementation, and 19 did not require any oxygen supplementation. Median duration of symptoms upon admission for the three groups were 13, 8, and 9 days, respectively. Antibody titers gradually increased for up to 3 weeks since the onset of symptoms for patients requiring oxygen supplementation with significantly higher antibody titers for patients requiring invasive ventilation. Antibody titers on admission were also significantly higher in severely ill patients and serology performed well in predicting the necessity of invasive ventilation (AUC: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67–0.9). Serology testing at admission may be a good indicator to identify severe COVID-19 patients who will require invasive mechanical ventilation.

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). Results: 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 ^® , Panbio−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 10 ⁵ copies/ml, up to 100%, 97.8%, 96.6% and 95.6% for viral loads above 10 ⁶ copies/ml and 100% (for all tests) when considering viral loads above 10 ⁷ 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. Conclusion: 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.