ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Implementation of a one-step strategy for diagnosis of active Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection would encourage the early diagnosis and reduce the time to access antiviral treatments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a HCV one-step diagnosis compared to the traditional two-step protocol in terms of the time required for patients to be seen by specialists and the time taken to start antiviral treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative study was carried out to assess two diagnostic algorithms (one-step and two-step) for active HCV infection. Serological markers were quantified using the same serum sample to determine both anti-HCV antibodies (HCV-Ab) and HCV core antigen (HCV-cAg) by Architect i2000 SR kit. In this period, a multidisciplinary procedure was started for telematics referral of viremic patients. RESULTS: One-step approach reduced the time required for patient HCV diagnosis, referral to a specialist, access to treatment, and eliminated the loss of patients to follow-up. Significant differences were observed between one-step and two-step diagnosis methods in the time required for patients to be seen by a specialist (18 days [Interquartile range (IQR) = 14-42] versus 107 days [IQR = 62-148]) and for the initiation of treatment (54 days [IQR = 43-75] versus 200 days [IQR = 116-388]), mainly for patients with advanced fibrosis (35 days [IQR = 116-388] versus 126 days [IQR = 152-366]). CONCLUSIONS: Use of HCV-cAg has proven to be a useful tool for screening patients with active hepatitis C. The development of a multidisciplinary protocol for the communication of results improved the efficiency of the care process.
Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Hepacivirus/immunology , Hepatitis C Antibodies/analysis , Hepatitis C Antigens/analysis , Hepatitis C/diagnosis , Telemedicine/methods , Female , Hepatitis C/drug therapy , Hepatitis C/virology , Humans , MaleABSTRACT
The usefulness of the PANBIO ™ COVID-19 Ag rapid test for SARS-CoV-2 infection detection has not been widely studied, especially in specific population groups such as the elderly who are institutionalized. Rapid diagnostic tests have the potential to benefit testing strategies, as they have short turnaround times, they are cheap, simple to perform and can be used in decentralized testing. The objective of this study is to show the performance of the PANBIO™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid test device conducted at geriatric institutions and to compare results to those obtained from RT-PCR. A total of 448 individuals were enrolled in the study, including both residents and employees. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected for both PANBIO™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid test and RT-PCR testing. All the samples were analyzed by specialized microbiologists. A total of 117 out of 448 individuals (26%) tested positive by RT-PCR, of whom 99 (85%) returned positive Antigen test results. There were 18 Antigen negative cases with positive RT-PCR results. Accordingly, concordance between RT-PCR and Antigen test results was acceptable (K index, 0.89; 95% IC 0.8455-0.9345). Overall sensitivity and specificity of Antigen test was 85% and 100%, respectively. When defining RT-PCR CT positivity on a cut-off value of 35, LFA sensitivity was 90%. In case a cut-off value of 30 was used, LFA would increase up to 99%. In this real-life evaluation of the PANBIO™ COVID-Ag rapid test, the assay reliably identified SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals with low CT-values by RT-PCR. False negative results were observed only at high CT-values, meaning low viral loads in nasopharyngeal samples.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Antigens, Viral , Humans , Nursing Homes , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic Tests , SpainABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic has spread worldwide since December 2019. Serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing are needed for detection of current or past infections. A wide range of commercial tests is available. However, most of them need to be validated. STUDY DESIGN: The aim was to compare a commercial IgG and IgA ELISA (Euroimmun) with three lateral flow immunoassays (LFI): Hangzhou Alltest Biotech, Wuhan UNscience Biotechnology and Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech. Specificity was calculated with 62 available serum samples from 2018/19. The study included 152 sera from patients of which 109 were RT-PCR positive. Sensitivities for ELISA anti SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA were 81.5 % and 93.1 % and specificities 100 % and 80.6 %, respectively. LFI showed variable performances, overall results being better for Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech. CONCLUSIONS: Commercial serological tests are useful for detection of antibodies in patients with COVID-19. ELISA presented better results than LFI. The results allowed to incorporate the most sensitive LFI to the daily workflow, combining with ELISA. Careful validation is encouraged before clinical laboratories start using these tests.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/methods , Immunoassay/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Serologic Tests/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin A/blood , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young AdultABSTRACT
Candida auris is an emerging multidrug-resistant yeast that causes serious invasive infections and outbreaks with high mortality. Controlling C. auris is a challenge in which laboratories, clinicians and public health agencies are needed to identify and treat infections and prevent transmission. This review describes the general aspects of the biology, diagnosis and treatment of C. auris infection, as well as the main recommendations recently published by expert groups. We also present our experience of the C. auris outbreak at the Consorcio Hospital General Universitario de Valencia from September 2017 to August 2019. A total of 203 patients were colonised and/or infected by C. auris. Thirty invasive infections (29 blood cultures and one case of meningitis) were diagnosed. In all, 32% cases of candidemia were caused by C. auris in 2018. All strains were resistant to fluconazole.
Subject(s)
Candidiasis, Invasive/epidemiology , Cross Infection , Antifungal Agents/therapeutic use , Candida/drug effects , Cross Infection/drug therapy , Disease Outbreaks , Drug Resistance, Fungal , Humans , Spain/epidemiologyABSTRACT
This article provides an analysis of the results obtained in 2017 by the participants inscribed in the External Quality Control Programme of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC), which includes controls for bacteriology, serology, mycology, parasitology, mycobacteria, virology, molecular microbiology, and genotypic bacterial resistance. The results obtained in 2017 confirm the excellent skill and good technical standards found in previous editions. However, the programme again showed that erroneous results can be obtained in any laboratory and even in clinically relevant determinations. Once again, the results of this program highlight the need to implement both internal and external controls, as in the SEIMC programme.
Subject(s)
Infectious Disease Medicine/standards , Laboratories/standards , Microbiology/standards , Quality Control , Bacteriology , Humans , Mycology , SpainABSTRACT
This article provides an analysis of the results obtained in 2018 by the participants inscribed in the External Quality Control Programme of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC), which includes controls for bacteriology, serology, mycology, parasitology, mycobacteria, virology, molecular microbiology, and genotypic bacterial resistance. The results obtained in 2018 confirm the excellent skill and good technical standards found in the vast majority of Spanish clinical microbiology laboratories, as shown in previous editions. However, the programme again shows that erroneous results can be obtained in any laboratory and even in clinically relevant determinations. Once again, the results of this programme highlight the need to implement both internal and external controls, as in the SEIMC programme.
Subject(s)
Infectious Disease Medicine/standards , Laboratories/standards , Microbiology/standards , Quality Control , Bacteriology , Humans , Mycology , SpainABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus (HCV) viral load determinations are among the most relevant markers for the follow-up of patients infected with these viruses. External quality control tools are crucial to ensure the accuracy of the results obtained by microbiology laboratories. This article summarised the results obtained from the 2017 SEIMC External Quality Control Programme for HIV-1, HCV, and HBV viral loads and HCV genotyping. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the HIV-1 programme, a total of five standards were sent. One standard consisted of seronegative human plasma, while the remaining four contained plasma from three different viremic patients, in the range of 2-5 log10 copies/mL; two of these standards were identical, with the aim of determining repeatability. A significant proportion of the laboratories (35% on average) obtained values outside the accepted range (mean±0.25 log10 copies/mL), depending on the standard and on the method used for quantification. Repeatability was good, with up to 94% of laboratories reporting results within the limits (D<0.5 log10 copies/mL). The HBV and HCV programme consisted of two standards with different viral load contents. Most of the participants, 82% in the case of HCV and 87% in that of HBV, obtained all the results within the accepted range (mean±1.96 SD log10 UI/mL). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this analysis reinforce the utility of proficiency programmes to ensure the quality of the results obtained by a particular laboratory. Due to the marked interlaboratory variability observed, it is advisable to use the same method and laboratory for patient follow-up.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Hepatitis B , Hepatitis C , Quality Control , Viral Load , HIV Infections/diagnosis , HIV-1 , Hepacivirus , Hepatitis B/diagnosis , Hepatitis B virus , Hepatitis C/diagnosis , Humans , Infectious Disease Medicine/standardsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus (HCV) viral load determinations are among the most relevant markers for the follow-up of patients infected with these viruses. External quality control tools are crucial to ensure the accuracy of the results obtained by microbiology laboratories. This article summarised the results obtained from the 2018 SEIMC External Quality Control Programme for HIV-1, HCV, and HBV viral loads and HCV genotyping. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the HIV-1 program, a total of five standards were sent. One standard consisted of seronegative human plasma, while the remaining four contained plasma from three different viremic patients, in the range of 2-5 log10 copies/mL; two of these standards were identical, with the aim of determining repeatability. A significant proportion of the laboratories (28% on average) obtained values outside the accepted range (mean±0.25 log10 copies/mL), depending on the standard and on the method used for quantification. Repeatability was good, with most laboratories reporting results within the limits (D<0.5 log10 copies/mL). The HBV and HCV programme consisted of two standards with different viral load contents. Most of the participants, 87% in the case of HCV and 88% in the HBV, obtained all the results within the accepted range (mean±1.96 SD log10 UI/mL). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this analysis reinforce the utility of proficiency programmes to ensure the quality of the results obtained by a particular laboratory. Due to the marked interlaboratory variability, it is advisable to use the same method and the same laboratory for patient follow-up.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Hepatitis B , Hepatitis C , Quality Control , Viral Load , HIV Infections/diagnosis , HIV-1 , Hepacivirus , Hepatitis B/diagnosis , Hepatitis B virus , Hepatitis C/diagnosis , Humans , Infectious Disease Medicine/standardsABSTRACT
Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) viral load determinations are among the most important markers in the follow-up of patients infected with these viruses. External quality control tools are crucial to ensure the accuracy of the results obtained by microbiology laboratories. This article summarizes the results obtained from the SEIMC's External Quality Control Program for HIV-1 and HCV viral loads in 2009. In the HIV-1 program, a total of five standards were sent. One standard consisted of seronegative human plasma, while the remaining four contained plasma from three different viremic patients, in the range of 2-5 log(10) copies/mL; two of these standards were identical, aiming to determine repeatability. A significant proportion of the laboratories (21.5% on average) obtained values outside the accepted range (mean ± 0.2 log(10) copies/mL), depending on the standard and on the method used for quantification. Repeatability was very good, with up to 95 % of laboratories reporting results within the accepted limits (Δ<0.5 log10 copies/mL). Post-analytical errors due to mistranscription of the results were detected for HIV-1. The HCV program consisted of two standards with different viral load contents. Most of the participants (79.7%) obtained results within the accepted range (mean ± 1.96 SD log(10) UI/mL). Data from this analysis reinforce the utility of proficiency programs to ensure the quality of the results obtained by a particular laboratory, as well as the importance of the post-analytical phase in overall quality. Due to marked interlaboratory variability, use of the same method and the same laboratory for patient follow-up is advisable.
Subject(s)
HIV-1/physiology , Hepacivirus/physiology , Quality Control , Societies, Scientific , Viral Load , Virology/standards , Humans , SpainABSTRACT
Las determinaciones de la carga viral de los virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana tipo 1 (VIH-1) y de la hepatitis C (VHC) son marcadores fundamentales para el seguimiento y control de los pacientes infectados por estos virus. Los laboratorios de microbiología deben disponer de herramientas que garanticen la fiabilidad de sus resultados, entre ellas se encuentran los programas de intercomparación externos. En el presente número se muestra el análisis de resultados del Programa de Control de Calidad SEIMC de carga viral de ambos virus y del genotipado del VHC, realizados durante el año 2009.En el control del VIH-1 se remitieron 5 estándares, de los que 1 (plasma humano seronegativo) no contenía el virus, y los otros 4 consistían en plasma de 3 pacientes virémicos distintos en un intervalo de concentraciones entre 25 log10 copias/ml; 2 de ellos eran idénticos, con el fin de analizar la repetibilidad. Una parte significativa de los laboratorios obtuvo resultados fuera de los límites aceptables (media ± 0,2 log10 copias/ml), dependiendo del estándar y del método empleado, en promedio el (..) (AU)
Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) viral load determinations are among the most important markers in the follow-up of patients infected with these viruses. External quality control tools are crucial to ensure the accuracy of the results obtained by microbiology laboratories. This article summarizes the results obtained from the SEIMCs External Quality Control Program for HIV-1and HCV viral loads in 2009.In the HIV-1 program, a total of five standards were sent. One standard consisted of seronegative human plasma, while the remaining four contained plasma from three different viremic patients, in the range of2-5 log10 copies/mL; two of these standards were identical, aiming to determine repeatability. A significant proportion of the laboratories (21.5% on average) obtained values outside the accepted range (mean ± 0.2 log10 copies/mL), depending on the standard and on the method used for quantification. Repeatability was very good, with up to 95% of laboratories reporting results within the accepted (..) (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Viral Load/methods , HIV Infections/virology , Hepatitis C/virology , Hepacivirus/isolation & purification , HIV/isolation & purification , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care/methods , /methodsABSTRACT
The External Quality Control Program of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology includes controls for bacteriology, serology, mycology, parasitology, mycobacteria, virology and molecular microbiology. This article presents the most important conclusions and lessons of the 2010 controls. As a whole, the results obtained in 2010 confirm the excellent skill and good technical standards found in previous years. However, erroneous results can be obtained in any laboratory and in clinically relevant determinations. The results of this program highlight the need to implement both internal and external controls to ensure maximal quality of microbiological tests(1).
Subject(s)
Infectious Disease Medicine/standards , Laboratories/standards , Laboratory Proficiency Testing , Microbiology/standards , Parasitology/standards , Serologic Tests/standards , Societies, Scientific/standards , Virology/standards , Antibodies, Bacterial/blood , Antibodies, Fungal/blood , Antibodies, Helminth/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Quality Assurance, Health Care , Reference Standards , Spain , Syphilis Serodiagnosis/standards , Young AdultABSTRACT
Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus (HCV) viral load determinations are among the most important markers for the follow-up of patients infected with these viruses. External quality control tools are crucial to ensure the accuracy of the results obtained by microbiology laboratories. This article summarized the results obtained in the 2010 External Quality Control Program of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology for HIV-1, HCV, and HBV viral loads and HCV genotyping. In the HIV-1 program, a total of five standards were sent. One standard consisted of seronegative human plasma, while the remaining four contained plasma from three different viremic patients, in the range of 3-5 log(10) copies/mL; two of these standards were identical, with the aim of determining repeatability. A significant proportion of the laboratories (22.6% on average) obtained values out of the accepted range (mean ± 0.2 log(10)copies/mL), depending on the standard and on the method used for quantification. Repeatability was very good, with up to 95% of laboratories reporting results within the limits (Δ<0.5 log(10)copies/mL). The HBV and HCV program consisted of two standards with different viral load contents. Most of the participants, 86.1% in the case of HCV and 87.1% in HBV, obtained all the results within the accepted range (mean ± 1.96 SD log(10)UI/mL). Post-analytical errors due to mistranscription of the results were detected in these controls. Data from this analysis reinforce the utility of proficiency programs to ensure the quality of the results obtained by a particular laboratory, as well as the importance of the post-analytical phase in overall quality. Due to interlaboratory variability, use of the same method and the same laboratory for patient follow-up is advisable.
Subject(s)
DNA, Viral/blood , HIV Infections/virology , Hepatitis B/virology , Hepatitis C/virology , Infectious Disease Medicine/standards , Laboratories/standards , Laboratory Proficiency Testing , Microbiology/standards , RNA, Viral/blood , Societies, Scientific/standards , Viral Load , Viremia/virology , Virology/standards , HIV-1/genetics , HIV-1/isolation & purification , Hepacivirus/genetics , Hepacivirus/isolation & purification , Hepatitis B virus/genetics , Hepatitis B virus/isolation & purification , Humans , Plasma , Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Polymerase Chain Reaction/standards , Polymorphism, Restriction Fragment Length , Quality Assurance, Health Care , Reproducibility of Results , SpainABSTRACT
The quality standard "UNE-EN-ISO 17043: 2010. Conformity assessment. General requirements for proficiency testing" applies to centers that organize intercomparisons in all areas. In the case of clinical microbiology laboratories, these intercomparisons must meet the management and technical standards required to achieve maximum quality in the performance of microbiological analysis and the preparation of test items (sample, product, data or other information used in the proficiency test) to enable them to be accredited. Once accredited, these laboratories can operate as a tool for quality control laboratories and competency assessment. In Spain, accreditation is granted by the Spanish Accreditation Body [Entidad Nacional de Acreditación (ENAC)]. The objective of this review is to explain how to apply the requirements of the standard to laboratories providing intercomparisons in the field of clinical microbiology (the organization responsible for all the tasks related to the development and operation of a proficiency testing program). This requires defining the scope and specifying the technical requirements (personnel management, control of equipment, facilities and environment, the design of the proficiency testing and data analysis for performance evaluation, communication with participants and confidentiality) and management requirements (document control, purchasing control, monitoring of complaints / claims, non-compliance, internal audits and management reviews).
Subject(s)
Guideline Adherence , Guidelines as Topic , Infectious Disease Medicine/standards , Laboratories/standards , Laboratory Proficiency Testing , Microbiology/standards , Quality Assurance, Health Care/standards , Societies, Scientific/standards , Accreditation/legislation & jurisprudence , Accreditation/standards , Laboratories/legislation & jurisprudence , Management Audit/organization & administration , Preservation, Biological/methods , Quality Assurance, Health Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Quality Assurance, Health Care/organization & administration , Quality Improvement , Societies, Scientific/legislation & jurisprudence , Societies, Scientific/organization & administration , Spain , Specimen Handling/standardsABSTRACT
The External Quality Control Program of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC) include controls for bacteriology, serology, mycology, parasitology, mycobacteria and virology. This article present the most relevant conclusions and lessons from the 2008 controls. As a whole, the results obtained in 2008 confirm the excellent skill and good technical standards of the microbiology laboratories in Spain found in previous editions. However, a few deviations can be obtained in any laboratory, even in clinically relevant determinations. Once again, the results of this program highlighted the need to implement both internal an external controls in order to assure the maximal quality of the microbiological tests.
Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Infectious Disease Medicine/organization & administration , Laboratories/standards , Microbiology/organization & administration , Quality Control , Diagnostic Errors/prevention & control , Diagnostic Errors/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infections/diagnosis , Infections/microbiology , Infections/parasitology , Infections/virology , Infectious Disease Medicine/standards , Laboratories/statistics & numerical data , Microbiology/standards , Program Evaluation , Quality Assurance, Health Care , SpainABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) viral load determinations are among the most relevant markers for the follow up of patients infected with these viruses. External quality control tools are crucial to ensure the accuracy of results obtained by microbiology laboratories. This article summarized the results obtained from the 2008 SEIMC External Quality Control Program for HIV-1 and HCV viral loads. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the HIV-1 program, a total of five standards were sent. One standard consisted in seronegative human plasma, while the remaining four contained plasma from 3 different viremic patients, in the range of 2-5 log(10) copies/mL; two of these standards were identical aiming to determine repeatability. The specificity was complete for all commercial methods, and no false positive results were reported by the participants. A significant proportion of the laboratories (24% on average) obtained values out of the accepted range (mean +/- 0.2 log(10) copies/mL), depending on the standard and on the method used for quantification. Repeatability was very good, with up to 95% of laboratories reporting results within the limits (D < 0.5 log(10) copias/mL). The HCV program consisted of two standards with different viral load contents. Most of the participants (88,7%) obtained results within the accepted range (mean +/- 1.96 SD log(10) UI/mL). Post-analytical errors due to mistranscription of the results were detected for HCV, but not for the HIV-1 program. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this analysis reinforce the utility of proficiency programmes to ensure the quality of the results obtained by a particular laboratory, as well as the importance of the post-analytical phase on the overall quality. Due to the remarkable interlaboratory variability, it is advisable to use the same method and the same laboratory for patient follow up.
