The VES-Matic 5 system: performance of a novel instrument for measuring erythrocyte sedimentation rate.

OBJECTIVES: The VES-Matic 5 is an automated analyzer that assesses erythrocyte sedimentation rate based on a modified Westergren sedimentation technique. Instrument performance was established by addressing the recommendations of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology. METHODS: Comparison against the reference Westergren method was performed for all samples, and further for the low, middle, and upper third of the analytical range. Intra-run precision, inter-run precision, and interference studies were further assessed. This study included the evaluation of reference ranges. RESULTS: The comparison of methods by Passing-Bablok analysis has shown a good agreement without systematic or proportional differences. The regression equation was y=-0.646 + 0.979x. The mean bias of -0.542 was obtained by Bland-Altman analysis and the upper limit of 8.03 with the lower limit of -9.11 can be considered clinically acceptable. Intra-run and inter-run precision were good for each parameter and interference studies did not show any significant bias with exception of anemia samples, which showed a proportional difference when comparing high erythrocyte sedimentation rate values. Using the local adult reference population, we verified the reference ranges in comparison to those available in the literature, and according to the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) EP28-A3C document. We determined the upper limit partitioned by gender and the following age groups: from 18 to 50, from 50 to 70, and over 70. CONCLUSIONS: The VES-Matic 5 analyzer presented good comparability with the reference method. As there are commercial quality control and suitable external quality assessment (EQA) material and programs, the VES-Matic 5 can be employed appropriately for routine purposes.

SARS-CoV-2 identification and IgA antibodies in saliva: One sample two tests approach for diagnosis.

AIM: This study aims to verify whether standardized saliva collection is suitable for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection and IgA measurement. METHODS: 43 COVID-19 inpatients and 326 screening subjects underwent naso-pharyngeal (NP)-swab and saliva collection (Salivette). Inpatients also underwent repeated blood collections to evaluate inflammation and organs involvement. In all patients and subjects, SARS-CoV-2 (gene E) rRT-PCR was undertaken in saliva and NP-swabs. Salivary IgA and serum IgA, IgG, IgM were measured on inpatients' samples. RESULTS: NP-swabs and saliva were both SARS-CoV-2 positive in 7 (16%) or both negative in 35 (82%) out of 43 patients successfully included in the study. NP-swabs and saliva results did not perfectly match in one patient (saliva positive, NP-swab negative). Positive molecular results were significantly associated with disease duration (p = 0.0049). 326/326 screening subjects were SARS-CoV-2 negative on both NP-swabs and saliva. Among the 27 saliva samples tested for IgA, 18 were IgA positive. Salivary IgA positivity was associated with pneumonia (p = 0.002) and CRP values (p = 0.0183), not with other clinical and molecular data, or with serum immunoglubulins. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized saliva collection can be adopted to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in alternative to NP-swabs. Preliminary data on salivary IgA support the use of saliva also for patient monitoring.