{"title":"External quality assessment survey for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests in clinical laboratories in Tokyo, 2021","authors":"Yoshiyuki Sugishita , Rie Moriuchi , 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.
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.