Implementation and evaluation of a novel real-time multiplex assay for SARS-CoV-2: in-field learnings from a clinical microbiology laboratory.

The unprecedented scale of testing required to effectively control the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated urgent implementation of rapid testing in clinical microbiology laboratories. To date, there are limited data available on the analytical performance of emerging commercially available assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and integration of these assays into laboratory workflows. Here, we performed a prospective validation study of a commercially available assay, the AusDiagnostics Coronavirus Typing (8-well) assay. Respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing were collected between 1 March and 25 March 2020. All positive samples and a random subset of negative samples were sent to a reference laboratory for confirmation. In total, 2673 samples were analysed using the Coronavirus Typing assay. The predominant sample type was a combined nasopharyngeal/throat swab (2640/2673; 98.8%). Fifty-four patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 (2.0%) using the Coronavirus Typing assay; 53/54 (98.1%) positive results and 621/621 (100%) negative results were concordant with the reference laboratory. Compared to the reference laboratory gold standard, sensitivity of the Coronavirus Typing assay for SARS-CoV-2 was 100% (95% CI 93.2-100%), specificity 99.8% (95% CI 99.1-100%), positive predictive value 98.1% (95% CI 90.2-99.7%) and negative predictive value 100% (95% CI 99.4-100%). In many countries, standard regulatory requirements for the introduction of new assays have been replaced by emergency authorisations and it is critical that laboratories share their post-market validation experiences, as the consequences of widespread introduction of a suboptimal assay for SARS-CoV-2 are profound. Here, we share our in-field experience, and encourage other laboratories to follow suit.

Health service impact of testing for respiratory pathogens using cartridge-based multiplex array versus molecular batch testing.

There is increasing demand for access to rapid microbiological testing, with a view to improving clinical outcomes. The possibility of rapid testing has been facilitated by development of cartridge-based random access molecular technologies that are now widely available. Whether the expense of cartridge-based assays is justified in terms of clinical or laboratory cost savings is controversial. This prospective study evaluated the impact of the Biofire FilmArray Respiratory Panel ('FilmArray'), a cartridge-based random access molecular test, compared with standard batched molecular testing using an 'in-house' respiratory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on laboratory and health service outcomes for adult patients at a tertiary-level adult hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Laboratory result turnaround time was significantly reduced with the FilmArray (median 4.4 h) compared to a standard validated in-house respiratory PCR assay (median 21.6 h, p < 0.0001) and there was a significant increase in diagnostic yield with the Filmarray (71/124, 57.3%) compared to in-house PCR (79/200; 39.5%; p = 0.002). Despite improved result turnaround time and increased diagnostic yield from testing, there was no corresponding reduction in hospital length of stay or use of isolation beds. Although cartridge-based molecular testing reduced turnaround time to result for respiratory pathogen testing, it did not impact on health service outcomes such as hospital length of stay. Further work is warranted to determine whether cartridge-based tests at the point of care can improve clinical and health service impacts.