External quality assessment survey for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests in clinical laboratories in Tokyo, 2021

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Yoshiyuki Sugishita , Rie Moriuchi , Yoshikazu Ishii
{"title":"External quality assessment survey for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests in clinical laboratories in Tokyo, 2021","authors":"Yoshiyuki Sugishita ,&nbsp;Rie Moriuchi ,&nbsp;Yoshikazu Ishii","doi":"10.1016/j.jiac.2024.01.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) play a pivotal role in clinical laboratories for diagnosing COVID-19. This study aimed to elucidate the accuracy of these tests.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In 2021, an external quality assessment of NAATs for SARS-CoV-2 was conducted in 47 laboratories in Tokyo, Japan. In open testing, where the laboratories knew that the samples were intended for the survey, a simulated nasopharyngeal swab suspension sample was used, featuring a positive sample A with a viral concentration of 50 copies/μL, positive sample B with 5 copies/μL, and a negative sample. Laboratories employing real-time RT-PCR were required to report cycle threshold (Ct) values. In blind testing, where the samples were processed as normal test samples, a positive sample C with 50 copies/μL was prepared using a simulated saliva sample.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 47 laboratories, 41 were engaged in open testing. For sample A, all 41 laboratories yielded positive results, whereas for sample B, 36 laboratories reported positive results, 3 laboratories reported “test decision pending”, 1 laboratory reported “suspected positive”, and 1 laboratory did not respond. All 41 laboratories correctly identified the negative samples as negative. The mean Ct values were 32.2 for sample A and 35.2 for sample B. In the blind test, six laboratories received samples. Sample C was identified as positive by five laboratories and negative by one laboratory.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The nature of the specimen, specifically the saliva, may have influenced the blind test outcomes. The identified issues must be meticulously investigated and rectified to ensure accurate results.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16103,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy","volume":"30 7","pages":"Pages 633-641"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1341321X24000266","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) play a pivotal role in clinical laboratories for diagnosing COVID-19. This study aimed to elucidate the accuracy of these tests.

Methods

In 2021, an external quality assessment of NAATs for SARS-CoV-2 was conducted in 47 laboratories in Tokyo, Japan. In open testing, where the laboratories knew that the samples were intended for the survey, a simulated nasopharyngeal swab suspension sample was used, featuring a positive sample A with a viral concentration of 50 copies/μL, positive sample B with 5 copies/μL, and a negative sample. Laboratories employing real-time RT-PCR were required to report cycle threshold (Ct) values. In blind testing, where the samples were processed as normal test samples, a positive sample C with 50 copies/μL was prepared using a simulated saliva sample.

Results

Of the 47 laboratories, 41 were engaged in open testing. For sample A, all 41 laboratories yielded positive results, whereas for sample B, 36 laboratories reported positive results, 3 laboratories reported “test decision pending”, 1 laboratory reported “suspected positive”, and 1 laboratory did not respond. All 41 laboratories correctly identified the negative samples as negative. The mean Ct values were 32.2 for sample A and 35.2 for sample B. In the blind test, six laboratories received samples. Sample C was identified as positive by five laboratories and negative by one laboratory.

Conclusions

The nature of the specimen, specifically the saliva, may have influenced the blind test outcomes. The identified issues must be meticulously investigated and rectified to ensure accurate results.

2021 年东京临床实验室 SARS-CoV-2 核酸扩增测试外部质量评估调查。
简介核酸扩增检验(NAATs)在临床实验室诊断COVID-19中发挥着举足轻重的作用。本研究旨在阐明这些检测方法的准确性:方法:2021 年,日本东京的 47 家实验室对 SARS-CoV-2 的 NAAT 进行了外部质量评估。在公开测试中,实验室知道样本是用于调查的,使用的是模拟鼻咽拭子悬液样本,包括病毒浓度为 50 拷贝/μL 的阳性样本 A、5 拷贝/μL 的阳性样本 B 和阴性样本。采用实时 RT-PCR 技术的实验室必须报告周期阈值(Ct)。在盲测中,样本按正常测试样本处理,使用模拟唾液样本制备 50 个拷贝/μL 的阳性样本 C:结果:在 47 个实验室中,有 41 个参与了公开检测。对于样本 A,所有 41 个实验室都得出了阳性结果,而对于样本 B,36 个实验室报告了阳性结果,3 个实验室报告 "检测决定待定",1 个实验室报告 "疑似阳性",1 个实验室未作回应。所有 41 个实验室都正确地将阴性样本鉴定为阴性。样本 A 和样本 B 的平均 Ct 值分别为 32.2 和 35.2。样本 C 被 5 家实验室鉴定为阳性,被 1 家实验室鉴定为阴性:样本的性质,特别是唾液,可能会影响盲测结果。必须认真调查和纠正已发现的问题,以确保结果准确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy INFECTIOUS DISEASES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.50%
发文量
303
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy (JIC) — official journal of the Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases — welcomes original papers, laboratory or clinical, as well as case reports, notes, committee reports, surveillance and guidelines from all parts of the world on all aspects of chemotherapy, covering the pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, and control of infection, including treatment with anticancer drugs. Experimental studies on animal models and pharmacokinetics, and reports on epidemiology and clinical trials are particularly welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信