cobas EBV 和 cobas BKV 检测的性能:标准化定量的多点比较。

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY Journal of Clinical Microbiology Pub Date : 2024-08-14 Epub Date: 2024-07-24 DOI:10.1128/jcm.00267-24
Laura Mannonen, Pia Jokela, Marianne Kragh Thomsen, Sabine Yerly, Gustavo Cilla, Daniel Jarem, Jesse A Canchola, Mark Hopkins
{"title":"cobas EBV 和 cobas BKV 检测的性能:标准化定量的多点比较。","authors":"Laura Mannonen, Pia Jokela, Marianne Kragh Thomsen, Sabine Yerly, Gustavo Cilla, Daniel Jarem, Jesse A Canchola, Mark Hopkins","doi":"10.1128/jcm.00267-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Guidelines recommend monitoring of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and BK virus (BKV) in solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. The majority of quantitative DNA testing for EBV and BKV employs unstandardized individual laboratory-developed testing solutions (LDTs), with implications for accuracy, reproducibility, and comparability between laboratories. The performance of the cobas EBV and cobas BKV assays was assessed across five laboratories, using the World Health Organization International Standards (WHO IS) for EBV and BKV, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology Quantitative Standard for BKV, and results were compared with the LDTs in use at the time. Methods were also compared using locally sourced clinical specimens. Variation was high when laboratories reported EBV or BKV DNA values using LDTs, where quantitative values were observed to differ by up to 1.5 log<sub>10</sub> unit/mL between sites. Conversely, results from the cobas EBV and cobas BKV assays were accurate and reproducible across sites and on different testing days. Adjustment of LDTs using the international standards led to closer alignment between the assays; however, day-to-day reproducibility of LDTs remained high. In addition, BKV continued to show bias, indicating challenges with the commutability of the BKV International Standard. The cobas EBV and cobas BKV assays are automated, aligned to the WHO IS, and have the potential to reduce the variability in viral load testing introduced by differences in LDTs. Standardization of reporting values may eventually allow different centers to compare data to allow clinical decision thresholds to be established supporting improvements in patient management.IMPORTANCEThe application of center-specific cut-offs for clinical decisions and the variability of LDTs often hinder interpretation; thus, the findings reported here support the need for standardization in the field of post-transplant monitoring of EBV and BKV to improve patient management. Alongside the choice of assay, it is also important to consider which standard to use when deciding upon a testing methodology. This is a call to action for standardization, as treatment for EBV and BKV is driven by viral load test results, and the more accurate and comparable the test results are across institutions, the more informed and better the treatment decisions can be.</p>","PeriodicalId":15511,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","volume":" ","pages":"e0026724"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11323559/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of the cobas EBV and cobas BKV assays: multi-site comparison of standardized quantitation.\",\"authors\":\"Laura Mannonen, Pia Jokela, Marianne Kragh Thomsen, Sabine Yerly, Gustavo Cilla, Daniel Jarem, Jesse A Canchola, Mark Hopkins\",\"doi\":\"10.1128/jcm.00267-24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Guidelines recommend monitoring of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and BK virus (BKV) in solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. The majority of quantitative DNA testing for EBV and BKV employs unstandardized individual laboratory-developed testing solutions (LDTs), with implications for accuracy, reproducibility, and comparability between laboratories. The performance of the cobas EBV and cobas BKV assays was assessed across five laboratories, using the World Health Organization International Standards (WHO IS) for EBV and BKV, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology Quantitative Standard for BKV, and results were compared with the LDTs in use at the time. Methods were also compared using locally sourced clinical specimens. Variation was high when laboratories reported EBV or BKV DNA values using LDTs, where quantitative values were observed to differ by up to 1.5 log<sub>10</sub> unit/mL between sites. Conversely, results from the cobas EBV and cobas BKV assays were accurate and reproducible across sites and on different testing days. Adjustment of LDTs using the international standards led to closer alignment between the assays; however, day-to-day reproducibility of LDTs remained high. In addition, BKV continued to show bias, indicating challenges with the commutability of the BKV International Standard. The cobas EBV and cobas BKV assays are automated, aligned to the WHO IS, and have the potential to reduce the variability in viral load testing introduced by differences in LDTs. Standardization of reporting values may eventually allow different centers to compare data to allow clinical decision thresholds to be established supporting improvements in patient management.IMPORTANCEThe application of center-specific cut-offs for clinical decisions and the variability of LDTs often hinder interpretation; thus, the findings reported here support the need for standardization in the field of post-transplant monitoring of EBV and BKV to improve patient management. Alongside the choice of assay, it is also important to consider which standard to use when deciding upon a testing methodology. This is a call to action for standardization, as treatment for EBV and BKV is driven by viral load test results, and the more accurate and comparable the test results are across institutions, the more informed and better the treatment decisions can be.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e0026724\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11323559/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00267-24\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00267-24","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

指南建议对实体器官和造血干细胞移植患者进行爱泼斯坦-巴氏病毒(EBV)和 BK 病毒(BKV)监测。EBV和BKV的DNA定量检测大多采用非标准化的实验室开发的单独检测方案(LDT),这对准确性、可重复性和实验室之间的可比性都有影响。我们采用世界卫生组织的 EBV 和 BKV 国际标准 (WHO IS) 以及美国国家标准与技术研究院的 BKV 定量标准,对五家实验室的 cobas EBV 和 cobas BKV 检测方法的性能进行了评估,并将结果与当时使用的 LDT 进行了比较。此外,还使用当地采集的临床标本对检测方法进行了比较。当实验室使用 LDT 报告 EBV 或 BKV DNA 值时,差异非常大,据观察,不同地点的定量值最多相差 1.5 log10 单位/毫升。相反,cobas EBV 和 cobas BKV 检测的结果在不同检测点和不同检测日的准确性和可重复性都很高。使用国际标准对 LDT 进行调整后,检测结果更加一致;然而,LDT 的日常重现性仍然很高。此外,BKV 继续出现偏差,表明 BKV 国际标准的可互换性面临挑战。cobas EBV 和 cobas BKV 检测试剂盒是自动化的,与世界卫生组织的国际标准一致,有可能减少因 LDT 不同而导致的病毒载量检测的变异性。报告值的标准化可能最终会让不同的中心对数据进行比较,从而建立临床决策阈值,支持患者管理的改进。重要意义应用特定中心的临界值进行临床决策以及 LDT 的可变性往往会妨碍解释;因此,本文报告的结果支持了移植后 EBV 和 BKV 监测领域的标准化需求,以改进患者管理。除了选择检测方法,在决定检测方法时考虑使用哪种标准也很重要。这是对标准化的呼吁,因为 EBV 和 BKV 的治疗是由病毒载量检测结果驱动的,不同机构的检测结果越准确、越具有可比性,治疗决策就越明智、越完善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Performance of the cobas EBV and cobas BKV assays: multi-site comparison of standardized quantitation.

Guidelines recommend monitoring of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and BK virus (BKV) in solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. The majority of quantitative DNA testing for EBV and BKV employs unstandardized individual laboratory-developed testing solutions (LDTs), with implications for accuracy, reproducibility, and comparability between laboratories. The performance of the cobas EBV and cobas BKV assays was assessed across five laboratories, using the World Health Organization International Standards (WHO IS) for EBV and BKV, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology Quantitative Standard for BKV, and results were compared with the LDTs in use at the time. Methods were also compared using locally sourced clinical specimens. Variation was high when laboratories reported EBV or BKV DNA values using LDTs, where quantitative values were observed to differ by up to 1.5 log10 unit/mL between sites. Conversely, results from the cobas EBV and cobas BKV assays were accurate and reproducible across sites and on different testing days. Adjustment of LDTs using the international standards led to closer alignment between the assays; however, day-to-day reproducibility of LDTs remained high. In addition, BKV continued to show bias, indicating challenges with the commutability of the BKV International Standard. The cobas EBV and cobas BKV assays are automated, aligned to the WHO IS, and have the potential to reduce the variability in viral load testing introduced by differences in LDTs. Standardization of reporting values may eventually allow different centers to compare data to allow clinical decision thresholds to be established supporting improvements in patient management.IMPORTANCEThe application of center-specific cut-offs for clinical decisions and the variability of LDTs often hinder interpretation; thus, the findings reported here support the need for standardization in the field of post-transplant monitoring of EBV and BKV to improve patient management. Alongside the choice of assay, it is also important to consider which standard to use when deciding upon a testing methodology. This is a call to action for standardization, as treatment for EBV and BKV is driven by viral load test results, and the more accurate and comparable the test results are across institutions, the more informed and better the treatment decisions can be.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Journal of Clinical Microbiology 医学-微生物学
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
347
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Microbiology® disseminates the latest research concerning the laboratory diagnosis of human and animal infections, along with the laboratory's role in epidemiology and the management of infectious diseases.
期刊最新文献
Characterization of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa carrying multiple carbapenemase genes-Antimicrobial Resistance Laboratory Network, 2018-2022. A simplified pyrazinamidase test for Mycobacterium tuberculosis pyrazinamide antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Retrospective analysis of antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of non-diphtheriae Corynebacterium species from a tertiary hospital and reference laboratory, 2012-2023. Performance evaluation of the Specific Reveal system for rapid antibiotic susceptibility testing from positive blood cultures containing Gram-negative pathogens. Evaluation of the KPC/IMP/NDM/VIM/OXA-48 Combo Test Kit and Carbapenem-Resistant K.N.I.V.O. Detection K-Set in detecting KPC variants.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1