Strategic Retesting to Reduce False Positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR Test Results.

BACKGROUND: Nucleic acid amplification testing is the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics, although it may produce a certain number of false positive results. There has not been much published about the characteristics of false positive results. In this study, based on retesting, specimens that initially tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were classified as true or false positive groups to characterize the distribution of cycle threshold (CT) values for N1 and N2 targets and number of targets detected for each group. METHODS: Specimens that were positive for N-gene on retesting and accompanied with S-gene were identified as true positives (true positive based on retesting, rTP), while specimens that retested negative were classified as false positives (false positive based on retesting, rFP). RESULTS: Of the specimens retested, 85/127 (66.9%) were rFP, 16/47 (34.0%) specimens with both N1 and N2 targets initially detected were rFP, and the CT values for each target was higher in rFP than in rTP. ROC curve analysis showed that optimal cutoff values of CT to differentiate between rTP and rFP were 34.8 for N1 and 33.0 for N2. With the optimal cutoff values of CT for each target, out of the 24 specimens that were positive for both N1 and N2 targets and classified as rTP, 23 (95.8%) were correctly identified as true positives. rFP specimens had a single N1 target in 52/61 (85.2%) and a single N2 target in 17/19 (89.5%). Notably, no true positive results were obtained from any specimens with only N2 target detected. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that retesting should be performed for positive results with a CT value greater than optimal cutoff value for each target or with a single N1 target amplified, considering the possibility of a false positive. This may provide guidance on indications to perform retesting to minimize the number of false positives.

Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of the Fully Automated Gene Analyzer µTASWako g1 for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The worldwide spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to an urgent need for nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Because NAAT has many manual processes, results may vary depending on the operator. Therefore, it has been required to develop a fully automated testing device and reagent that detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2. The µTASWako g1 system (FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation, Osaka, Japan), a genetic analyzer, provides results in 75 minutes by performing a fully automated PCR process. METHODS: We evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of the µTASWako g1 system for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. RESULTS: The µTASWako g1 system had the limit of detection at 2,000 copies/mL using a known concentration of RNA. In clinical samples, the µTASWako g1 system had a sensitivity of 88.0% and 100% specificity compared to conventional RT-PCR. The µTAS Wako g1 system could detect three variants of concern carrying spike mutations including N501Y, E484K, and L452R. CONCLUSIONS: As the assay on the µTASWako g1 system is highly accurate for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the experience of operator, it can be widely applicable in clinical laboratories.

Performance evaluation of leukocyte differential on the hematology analyzer Celltac G compared with two hematology analyzers, reference flow cytometry method, and two manual methods.

BACKGROUND: The automated hematology analyzer Celltac G (Nihon Kohden) was designed to improve leukocyte differential performance. Comparison with analyzers using different leukocyte detection principles and differential leukocyte count on wedge film (Wedge-Diff) shows its clinical utility, and comparison with immunophenotypic leukocyte differential reference method (FCM-Ref) shows its accuracy performance. METHODS: For method comparison, 598 clinical samples and 46 healthy volunteer samples were selected. The two comparative hematology analyzers (CAAs) used were XN-9000 (Sysmex) and CELL-DYN Sapphire (Abbott). The FCM-Ref provided by the Japanese Society for Laboratory Hematology was selected, and a flow cytometer Navios (Beckman-Coulter) was used. In manual differential, two kinds of automated slide makers were used: SP-10 (Sysmex) for wedge technique and SPINNER-2000 (Lion-Power) for spinner technique. The spinner technique avoids the issue of Wedge-Diff smudge cells by removing the risk of breaking cells and non-uniformity of blood cell distribution on films (Spinner-Diff). RESULTS: The Celltac G showed sufficient comparability (r = 0.67-1.00) with the CAAs for each leukocyte differential counting value at 0.00-40.87(109 /L), and sufficient comparability (r = 0.73-0.97) with FCM-Ref for each leukocyte differential percentage at 0.4-78.5. The identification ratio of the FCM-Ref in CD45-positive cells was 99.7% (99.4% to 99.8%). Differences were found between FCM-Ref/Celltac G/XN-9000/Spinner-Diff and Wedge-Diff for monocytes and neutrophils. The appearance ratio of smudge cells on wedge and spinner film was 12.5% and 0.5%. CONCLUSION: The Celltac G hematology analyzer's leukocyte differential showed adequate accuracy compared with the CAAs, FCM-Ref, and two manual methods and was considered suitable for clinical use.

Platelet count evaluation compared with the immunoplatelet reference method and performance evaluation of the hematology analyzer Celltac G.

INTRODUCTION: The hematology analyzer, Celltac G (Nihon Kohden), designed to improve platelet count (Plt) accuracy, is equipped with new sheath flow control technology. Clinical evaluation of the Celltac G was assessed by comparability with XN-9000 (Sysmex Corporation) and CELL-DYN Sapphire (Abbott Diagnostics). The accuracy of all three analyzers, which use different measuring principles, was compared with the immunoplatelet reference method (FCM-Ref). METHODS: Repeatability and within-laboratory imprecision were assessed using 10 clinical fresh whole blood samples and three control materials with differing levels. Carryover was evaluated using 6 clinical fresh whole blood samples. For method comparison between the three analyzers, 388 samples were used. Plt accuracy among the three analyzers was evaluated using 54 blood samples, including 42 samples with a platelet count less than 50x109 /L. The International Council for Standardization in Haematology method for Plt was used as the FCM-Ref. RESULTS: The Celltac G showed sufficient performance with regard to imprecision, carryover, and comparability. The Analytical Measurement Interval (AMI) and linearity for all parameters of Plt were validated within 4.6 to 809.1 (×109 /L). All hematology analyzers showed some disagreement in Plt when compared with the immunoplatelet reference method. CONCLUSION: The Celltac G hematology analyzer is suitable for clinical use. Platelet count evaluation of the three analyzers suggests the need to determine a reportable measurement interval (RMI) in the clinical laboratory for adequate reporting of a Plt from multiple different values.