Quality control and external quality assessment for the independent clinic-based evaluation of point-of-care testing to detect Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Trichomonas vaginalis in eight countries.

BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) remain significant global health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently conducted a multi-faceted, multi-country validation study (ProSPeRo), which included an evaluation of the Xpert CT/NG and Xpert TV assays on the GeneXpert system (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, Ca., USA) in clinic-based settings across eight countries. To support the study, a training and quality management system was implemented and evaluated. METHODS: A comprehensive training program for the study was developed. Quality control (QC) and external quality assessment (EQA) samples were provided by an accredited quality assurance provider. QC testing was conducted at 14 point-of-care testing (POCT) clinics, while EQA samples were tested by the POCT sites and a reference laboratory supporting each clinic. RESULTS: For QC testing, concordance with the expected results for CT and NG was > 99% and rates of unsuccessful tests were < 4%. For TV testing, concordance was similar (97%), but rates of unsuccessful tests were high (18%), particularly in the 'TV negative' sample. For EQA testing initially conducted in 2018, concordance was 100% for CT and NG, and 90% for TV for the reference laboratory group (which used non-GeneXpert systems). Concordance for the POCT group was also high (> 94%) for all analytes, but this cohort (which used GeneXpert systems) exhibited a high rate of unsuccessful TV tests. All but one of these unsuccessful tests was subcategorised as 'invalid'. CONCLUSIONS: The high level of concordance for QC and EQA testing confirm that the trained operators at the POC clinical sites were competent to conduct POC testing and that the training and quality systems implemented for the ProSPeRo study were effective. The quality materials used were satisfactory for CT and NG but exhibited poor performance for TV testing on the GeneXpert system. The WHO should continue to work with industry and EQA providers to provide improved materials that are reliable, stable and cost effective for quality management, as it seeks to rollout molecular-based STI POCT in non-laboratory-based settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Ethics approval to conduct the ProSPeRo study was granted by the WHO Ethics Review Committee.

Point-of-care testing: state-of-the art and perspectives.

Point-of-care testing (POCT) is becoming an increasingly popular way to perform laboratory tests closer to the patient. This option has several recognized advantages, such as accessibility, portability, speed, convenience, ease of use, ever-growing test panels, lower cumulative healthcare costs when used within appropriate clinical pathways, better patient empowerment and engagement, and reduction of certain pre-analytical errors, especially those related to specimen transportation. On the other hand, POCT also poses some limitations and risks, namely the risk of lower accuracy and reliability compared to traditional laboratory tests, quality control and connectivity issues, high dependence on operators (with varying levels of expertise or training), challenges related to patient data management, higher costs per individual test, regulatory and compliance issues such as the need for appropriate validation prior to clinical use (especially for rapid diagnostic tests; RDTs), as well as additional preanalytical sources of error that may remain undetected in this type of testing, which is usually based on whole blood samples (i.e., presence of interfering substances, clotting, hemolysis, etc.). There is no doubt that POCT is a breakthrough innovation in laboratory medicine, but the discussion on its appropriate use requires further debate and initiatives. This collective opinion paper, composed of abstracts of the lectures presented at the two-day expert meeting "Point-Of-Care-Testing: State of the Art and Perspective" (Venice, April 4-5, 2024), aims to provide a thoughtful overview of the state-of-the-art in POCT, its current applications, advantages and potential limitations, as well as some interesting reflections on the future perspectives of this particular field of laboratory medicine.

Time to address quality control processes applied to antibody testing for infectious diseases.

As testing for infectious diseases moves from manual, biological testing such as complement fixation to high throughput automated autoanalyzer, the methods for controlling these assays have also changed to reflect those used in clinical chemistry. However, there are many differences between infectious disease serology and clinical chemistry testing, and these differences have not been considered when applying traditional quality control methods to serology. Infectious disease serology, which is highly regulated, detects antibodies of varying classes and to multiple and different antigens that change according to the organisms' genotype/serotype and stage of disease. Although the tests report a numerical value (usually signal to cut-off), they are not measuring an amount of antibodies, but the intensity of binding within the test system. All serology assays experience lot-to-lot variation, making the use of quality control methods used in clinical chemistry inappropriate. In many jurisdictions, the use of the manufacturer-provided kit controls is mandatory to validate the test run. Use of third-party controls, which are highly recommended by ISO 15189 and the World Health Organization, must be manufactured in a manner whereby they have minimal lot-to-lot variation and at a level where they detect exceptional variation. This paper outlines the differences between clinical chemistry and infectious disease serology and offers a range of recommendations when addressing the quality control of infectious disease serology.

The Standardization and Control of Serology and Nucleic Acid Testing for Infectious Diseases.

Historically, the detection of antibodies against infectious disease agents was achieved using test systems that utilized biological functions such as neutralization, complement fixation, hemagglutination, or visualization of binding of antibodies to specific antigens, by testing doubling dilutions of the patient sample to determine an endpoint. These test systems have since been replaced by automated platforms, many of which have been integrated into general medical pathology. Methods employed to standardize and control clinical chemistry testing have been applied to these serology tests. However, there is evidence that these methods are not suitable for infectious disease serology. An overriding reason is that, unlike testing for an inert chemical, testing for specific antibodies to infectious disease agents is highly variable; the measurand for each test system varies in choice of antigen, antibody classes/subclasses, modes of detection, and assay kinetics, and individuals' immune responses vary with time after exposure, individual immune-competency, nutrition, treatment, and exposure to variable circulating sero- or genotypes or organism mutations. Therefore, unlike that of inert chemicals, the quantification of antibodies cannot be standardized using traditional methods. However, there is evidence that the quantification of nucleic acid testing, reporting results in international units, has been successful across many viral load tests. Similarly, traditional methods used to control clinical chemistry testing, such as Westgard rules, are not appropriate for serology testing for infectious diseases, mainly due to variability due to frequent reagent lot changes. This review investigates the reasons why standardization and control of infectious diseases should be further investigated and more appropriate guidelines should be implemented.

Real-world monitoring progress towards the elimination of hepatitis C virus in Australia using sentinel surveillance of primary care clinics; an ecological study of hepatitis C virus antibody tests from 2009 to 2019.

To achieve the elimination of the hepatitis C virus (HCV), sustained and sufficient levels of HCV testing is critical. The purpose of this study was to assess trends in testing and evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to diagnose people living with HCV. Data were from 12 primary care clinics in Victoria, Australia, that provide targeted services to people who inject drugs (PWID), alongside general health care. This ecological study spanned 2009-2019 and included analyses of trends in annual numbers of HCV antibody tests among individuals with no previous positive HCV antibody test recorded and annual test yield (positive HCV antibody tests/all HCV antibody tests). Generalised linear models estimated the association between count outcomes (HCV antibody tests and positive HCV antibody tests) and time, and χ2 test assessed the trend in test yield. A total of 44 889 HCV antibody tests were conducted 2009-2019; test numbers increased 6% annually on average [95% confidence interval (CI) 4-9]. Test yield declined from 2009 (21%) to 2019 (9%) (χ2P = <0.01). In more recent years (2013-2019) annual test yield remained relatively stable. Modest increases in HCV antibody testing and stable but high test yield within clinics delivering services to PWID highlights testing strategies are resulting in people are being diagnosed however further increases in the testing of people at risk of HCV or living with HCV may be needed to reach Australia's HCV elimination goals.

Does a change in quality control results influence the sensitivity of an anti-HCV test?

Background Laboratories use quality control (QC) testing to monitor the extent of normal variation. Assay lot number changes contribute the greatest amount of variation in infectious disease serology testing. An unexpected change in six lots of an anti-HCV assay allowed the determination of the effect these lot changes made to the assay's clinical sensitivity. Methods Two sets of seroconversion samples comprising of 44 individual samples and 9 external quality assessment scheme (EQAS) samples, all positive to anti-HCV, were tested in affected and unaffected assay lots, and the difference in the quantitative and qualitative results of the samples was analyzed. Results Of 44 low-positive seroconversion samples tested in affected and unaffected assay lots, only three samples had results reported below the assay cutoff when tested on two of the six affected assay lot. A further sample had results below the cutoff for only one affected lot. None of the EQAS samples reported false-negative results. Samples having a signal to cutoff value of less than 6.0 generally had lower results in the affected lots compared with the unaffected lots. Conclusions Unexpected changes in QC reactivity related to variation, in particular assay lot changes, may affect patient results. This study demonstrated that QConnect Limits facilitated the detection of an unexpectedly large variation in QC test results, allowed for the identification of the root cause of the change, and showed that the risk associated with the change was low but credible. The use of evidence-based QC program is essential to detect changes in test systems.

Tracking the uptake of outcomes of hepatitis B virus testing using laboratory data in Victoria, 2011-16: a population-level cohort study.

Background A priority area in the 2016 Victorian Hepatitis B Strategy is to increase diagnostic testing. This study describes hepatitis B testing and positivity trends in Victoria between 2011 and 2016 using data from a national laboratory sentinel surveillance system. METHODS: Line-listed diagnostic and monitoring hepatitis B testing data among Victorian individuals were collated from six laboratories participating in the Australian Collaboration for Coordinated Enhanced Sentinel Surveillance (ACCESS) of sexually transmissible infections and blood-borne viruses. Diagnostic tests included hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-only tests and guideline-based hepatitis B tests (defined as a single test event for HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antibody and hepatitis B core antibody). Using available data, the outcomes of testing and/or infection were further classified. Measures reported include the total number of HBsAg and guideline-based tests conducted and the proportion positive, classified as either HBsAg positive or chronic hepatitis B infection. RESULTS: The number of HBsAg tests decreased slightly each year between 2011 and 2016 (from 91043 in 2011 to 79664 in 2016; P < 0.001), whereas the number of guideline-based hepatitis B tests increased (from 8732 in 2011 to 16085 in 2016; P <0.001). The proportion of individuals classified as having chronic infection decreased from 25% in 2011 to 7% in 2016, whereas the proportion classified as susceptible and immune due to vaccination increased (from 29% to 39%, and from 27% to 34%, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The study findings indicate an increased uptake of guideline-based hepatitis B testing. The ongoing collection of testing data can help monitor progress towards implementation of the Victorian Hepatitis B Strategy.

Comparison of four methods of establishing control limits for monitoring quality controls in infectious disease serology testing.

BACKGROUND: A general trend towards conducting infectious disease serology testing in centralized laboratories means that quality control (QC) principles used for clinical chemistry testing are applied to infectious disease testing. However, no systematic assessment of methods used to establish QC limits has been applied to infectious disease serology testing. METHODS: A total of 103 QC data sets, obtained from six different infectious disease serology analytes, were parsed through standard methods for establishing statistical control limits, including guidelines from Public Health England, USA Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), German Richtlinien der Bundesärztekammer (RiliBÄK) and Australian QConnect. The percentage of QC results failing each method was compared. RESULTS: The percentage of data sets having more than 20% of QC results failing Westgard rules when the first 20 results were used to calculate the mean±2 standard deviation (SD) ranged from 3 (2.9%) for R4S to 66 (64.1%) for 10X rule, whereas the percentage ranged from 0 (0%) for R4S to 32 (40.5%) for 10X when the first 100 results were used to calculate the mean±2 SD. By contrast, the percentage of data sets with >20% failing the RiliBÄK control limits was 25 (24.3%). Only two data sets (1.9%) had more than 20% of results outside the QConnect Limits. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of failure of QCs using QConnect Limits was more applicable for monitoring infectious disease serology testing compared with UK Public Health, CLSI and RiliBÄK, as the alternatives to QConnect Limits reported an unacceptably high percentage of failures across the 103 data sets.

Standardization of Assays That Detect Anti-Rubella Virus IgG Antibodies.

Rubella virus usually causes a mild infection in humans but can cause congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). Vaccination programs have significantly decreased primary rubella virus infection and CRS; however, vaccinated individuals usually have lower levels of rubella virus IgG than those with natural infections. Rubella virus IgG is quantified with enzyme immunoassays that have been calibrated against the World Health Organization (WHO) international standard and report results in international units per milliliter. It is recognized that the results reported by these assays are not standardized. This investigation into the reasons for the lack of standardization found that the current WHO international standard (RUB-1-94) fails by three key metrological principles. The standard is not a pure analyte but is composed of pooled human immunoglobulin. It was not calibrated by certified reference methods; rather, superseded tests were used. Finally, no measurement uncertainty estimations have been provided. There is an analytical and clinical consequence to the lack of standardization of rubella virus IgG assays, which leads to misinterpretation of results. The current approach to standardization of rubella virus IgG assays has not achieved the desired results. A new approach is required.

Where to Now for Standardization of Anti-Rubella Virus IgG Testing.

The lack of standardization of rubella IgG testing continues to be a problem 20 years since the standard was introduced. The situation is complex and poorly understood. As demonstrated by an article in this issue (E. Bouthry, M. Furione, D. Huzly, A. Ogee-Nwankwo, L. Hao, A. Adebayo, J. Icenogle, A. Sarasini, M. Grazia Revello, L. Grangeot-Keros, and C. Vauloup-Fellous, J Clin Microbiol 54:1720-1725, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00383-16), the problem remains. The situation is far from being resolved, but at least the process for change has started.

Determination of quality control limits for serological infectious disease testing using historical data.

BACKGROUND: An effective quality control (QC) program requires the establishment of control limits within which the results of the QC sample is expected to fall. Traditionally, the mean plus/minus two standard deviations calculated for a set of QC sample results is used to establish control limits. Allowable total error (TEa) and Westgard rules aid in interpreting QC sample results. Westgard rules assume QC sample results are normally distributed and TEa assumes commutability between the QC sample and patient results. None of these paradigms apply to infectious disease testing. METHODS: RESULTS from the NRL's QC program were extracted and sorted into assay/QC lot number-specific data. Control limits for selected QC samples used to monitor 64 commonly used serological assays were calculated and validated using the within- and between-QC lot variance of data from each of the assay/QC combinations. RESULTS: No assay/QC combination had more than 10% of results less than the lower control limit or greater than the upper control limit. Of the 423 assay/QC lot combinations, 14 (3.3%) had more than 5% of results less than the lower limit and 48 (11.3%) had more than 5% of results greater than the upper limit calculated for that assay/QC combination. CONCLUSIONS: The control limits, established by this novel method, are based on more than a decade of QC test results from >300 laboratories from 30 countries and provides users of the NRL QC program evidence-based control limits that can be applied in isolation or in conjunction with more traditional methods for establishing control limits.

Analysis of laboratory testing results collected in an enhanced chlamydia surveillance system in Australia, 2008-2010.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydial infection is the most common notifiable disease in Australia, Europe and the US. Australian notifications of chlamydia rose four-fold from 20,274 cases in 2002 to 80,846 cases in 2011; the majority of cases were among young people aged less than 29 years. Along with test positivity rates, an understanding of the number of tests performed and the demographics of individuals being tested are key epidemiological indicators. The ACCESS Laboratory Network was established in 2008 to address this issue. METHODS: The ACCESS Laboratory Network collected chlamydia testing data from 15 laboratories around Australia over a three-year period using data extraction software. All chlamydia testing data from participating laboratories were extracted from the laboratory information system; patient identifiers converted to a unique, non-reversible code and de-identified data sent to a single database. Analysis of data by anatomical site included all specimens, but in age and sex specific analysis, only one testing episode was counted. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2010 a total of 628,295 chlamydia tests were referred to the 15 laboratories. Of the 592,626 individual episodes presenting for testing, 70% were from female and 30% from male patients. In female patients, chlamydia positivity rate was 6.4% overall; the highest rate in 14 year olds (14.3%). In male patients, the chlamydia positivity rate was 9.4% overall; the highest in 19 year olds (16.5%). The most common sample type was urine (57%). In 3.2% of testing episodes, multiple anatomical sites were sampled. Urethral swabs gave the highest positivity rate for all anatomical sites in both female (7.7%) and male patients (14%), followed by urine (7.6% and 9.4%, respectively) and eye (6.3% and 7.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The ACCESS Laboratory Network data are unique in both number and scope and are representative of chlamydia testing in both general practice and high-risk clinics. The findings from these data highlight much lower levels of testing in young people aged 20 years or less; in particular female patients aged less than 16 years, despite being the group with the highest positivity rate. Strategies are needed to increase the uptake of testing in this high-risk group.

Comprehensive, comparative evaluation of 25 automated SARS-CoV-2 serology assays.

IMPORTANCE: We have previously highlighted the fact that hundreds of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests were released months after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the hundreds of studies investigating the test kits' performance, few were comparative reports, using the same comprehensive sample set across multiple tests. Recently, we reported a comparative assessment of 35 rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) or microtiter plate enzyme immunoassays (EIA) for use in low- and middle-income countries, using a large sample set from individuals with a history of COVID-19. Only a few tests meet WHO Target Product Profile performance requirements. This study reports on the performance of a further 25 automated SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays using the same panel of samples. The results highlight the better analytical and clinical performance of automated serology test kits compared with RDTs, and the importance of independent comparative assessments to inform the use and procurement of these tests for both diagnostic and epidemiological investigations.

Comprehensive, Comparative Evaluation of 35 Manual SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays.

The onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in hundreds of in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs) coming to market, facilitated by regulatory authorities allowing "emergency use" without a comprehensive evaluation of performance. The World Health Organization (WHO) released target product profiles (TPPs) specifying acceptable performance characteristics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay devices. We evaluated 26 rapid diagnostic tests and 9 enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for anti-SARS-CoV-2, suitable for use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), against these TPPs and other performance characteristics. The sensitivity and specificity ranged from 60.1 to 100% and 56.0 to 100%, respectively. Five of 35 test kits reported no false reactivity for 55 samples with potentially cross-reacting substances. Six test kits reported no false reactivity for 35 samples containing interfering substances, and only one test reported no false reactivity with samples positive for other coronaviruses (not SARS-CoV-2). This study demonstrates that a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of test kits against defined specifications is essential for the selection of test kits, especially in a pandemic setting. IMPORTANCE The markets have been flooded with hundreds of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests, and although there are many published reports on their performance, comparative reports are far fewer and tend to be limited to only a few tests. In this report, we comparatively assessed 35 rapid diagnostic tests or microtiter plate enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) using a large set of samples from individuals with a history of mild to moderate COVID-19, commensurate with the target population for serosurveillance, which included serum samples from individuals previously infected, at undetermined time periods, with other seasonal human coronaviruses, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and SARS-CoV-1. The significant heterogeneity in their performances, with only a few tests meeting WHO target product profile performance requirements, highlights the importance of independent comparative assessments to inform the use and procurement of these tests for both diagnostics and epidemiological investigations.

Implementation of Novel Quality Assurance Program for Hepatitis C Viral Load Point of Care Testing.

All patients should have access to accurate and timely test results. The introduction of point of care testing (PoCT) for infectious diseases has facilitated access to those unable to access traditional laboratory-based medical testing, including those living in remote and regional locations, or individuals who are marginalized or incarcerated individuals. In many countries, laboratory testing for infectious diseases, such as hepatitis C virus (HCV), is performed in a highly regulated environment. However, this is not the case for PoCT, where testing is performed by non-laboratory staff and quality controls are often lacking. An assessment of the provision of laboratory-based quality assurance to PoCT for infectious disease was conducted and the barriers to participation identified. A novel approach to providing quality assurance to PoCT sites, in particular those testing for HCV, was designed and piloted. This novel approach incudes identifying and validating sample types that are inactivated and stable at ambient temperature, creating cost-effective supply chains to facilitate logistics of samples, and the development of a smart phone-enabled portal for data entry and analyses. The creation and validation of this approach to quality assurance of PoCT removes the barriers to participation and acts to improve the quality and accuracy of testing, reduce errors and waste, and improve patient outcomes.

Low Genetic Diversity of Hepatitis B Virus Surface Gene amongst Australian Blood Donors.

Variants in the small surface gene of hepatitis B virus (HBV), which codes for viral surface antigen (HBsAg), can affect the efficacy of HBsAg screening assays and can be associated with occult HBV infection (OBI). This study aimed to characterise the molecular diversity of the HBV small surface gene from HBV-reactive Australian blood donors. HBV isolates from 16 HBsAg-positive Australian blood donors' plasma were sequenced and genotyped by phylogenies of viral coding genes and/or whole genomes. An analysis of the genetic diversity of eight HBV small surface genes from our 16 samples was conducted and compared with HBV sequences from NCBI of 164 international (non-Australian) blood donors. Genotypes A-D were identified in our samples. The region of HBV small surface gene that contained the sequence encoding the 'a' determinant had a greater genetic diversity than the remaining part of the gene. No escape mutants or OBI-related variants were observed in our samples. Variant call analysis revealed two samples with a nucleotide deletion leading to truncation of polymerase and/or large/middle surface amino acid sequences. Overall, we found that HBV small surface gene sequences from Australian donors demonstrated a lower level of genetic diversity than those from non-Australian donor population included in the study.