Results of a European-Wide External Quality Assessment (EQA) Scheme for Serological Detection of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (CoVimm)-Pitfalls of Routine Application.

BACKGROUND: During the last two years, a variety of assays for the serological detection of antibodies to the new SARS-CoV-2 virus have been launched and used as part of standard care in many laboratories. The pace with which these tests have been introduced into routine care emphasizes the importance of quality measures for analytical methods, particularly with regard to the implications of results for clinical and epidemiologic decisions. Accuracy, reliability and comparability of analytical test results are thus essential, and here external quality assessment (EQA) is the most important quality assurance tool. It allows us to achieve harmonization of test methods as a prerequisite for a high standard of performance for laboratory and analytical techniques and their interpretation. METHODS: This EQA scheme consisted of pre-characterized clinical biospecimens dedicated to the analysis of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG total antibodies and differentiation into spike protein-specific IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (anti-S-SARS-CoV-2) and nucleocapsid-specific IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (anti-N-SARS-CoV-2). RESULTS: A total of 239 laboratories across Europe participated in this scheme, called CoVimm. In detail, 536 results for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, 431 results for anti-S-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, and 200 results for anti-N-SARS-CoV-2 IgG were reported. Based on the pre-defined thresholds, the success rates for the determination of anti-S-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and anti-N-SARS-CoV-2 IgG were 96% and 90%, respectively. Interestingly, only 64% of the participating laboratories successfully passed the EQA scheme for the determination of total anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. CONCLUSIONS: This EQA revealed serious concerns regarding the reliability and appropriate use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays in routine care. In addition to the wide heterogeneity of different assays used by participating laboratories, a lack of standardization and harmonization is also evident. This is of particular importance for reliable and clinically meaningful interpretation of test results.

Assessing the Quality of Serological Testing in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of a European External Quality Assessment (EQA) Scheme for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Detection.

External quality assessment (EQA) is a key instrument for achieving harmonization, and thus a high quality, of diagnostic procedures. As reliable test results are crucial for accurate assessment of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence, vaccine response, and immunity, and thus for successful management of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Reference Institute for Bioanalytics (RfB) was the first EQA provider to offer an open scheme for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection. The main objectives of this EQA were (i) to gain insights into the current diagnostic landscape and the performance of serological tests in Europe and (ii) to provide recommendations for diagnostic improvements. Within the EQA, a blinded panel of precharacterized human serum samples with variable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers was provided for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies. Across the three distribution rounds in 2020, 284 laboratories from 22 countries reported a total of 3,744 results for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection using more than 24 different assays for IgG. Overall, 97/3,004 results were false for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, 88/248 for IgA, and 34/124 for IgM. Regarding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, substantial differences were found between the different assays used, as well as between certified and noncertified tests. For cutoff samples, a drop in the diagnostic sensitivity to 46.3% and high interlaboratory variability were observed. In general, this EQA highlights the current variability of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection, technical limitations with respect to cutoff samples, and the lack of harmonization of testing procedures. Recommendations are provided to help laboratories and manufacturers further improve the quality of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological diagnostics.

Results of the first pilot external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for anti-SARS-CoV2-antibody testing.

Objectives Assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection prevalence and immunity is cornerstones in the fight against COVID-19 pandemic. For pandemic control, reliable assays for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are required. This pilot external quality assessment (EQA) scheme aimed to independently assess the participants' clinical performance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 testing, to identify shortcomings in clinical practice and to evaluate the suitability of the scheme format. Methods The EQA scheme consisted of eight serum samples with variable reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 intended for the analysis of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig)G, IgA, and IgM antibodies. Laboratories reported: (1) results for each sample and the respective method, (2) raw data from replicate testing of each sample. Results The 16 selected pilot EQA participants reported 294 interpreted results and 796 raw data results from replicate testing. The overall error rate for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM tests was 2.7, 6.9, and 16.7%, respectively. While the overall diagnostic specificity was rated as very high, sensitivity rates between 67 and 98% indicate considerable quality differences between the manufacturers, especially for IgA and IgM. Conclusions Even the results reported by the small number of participants indicate a very heterogeneous landscape of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological testing. Differences of available tests and the individual performance of laboratories result in a success rate of 57.1% with one laboratory succeeding for all three antibody-classes. These results are an incentive for laboratories to participate in upcoming open EQA schemes that are needed to achieve a harmonization of test results and to improve serological testing.

Comparison of test performance of commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in serum and plasma samples.

BACKGROUND: For epidemiologic, social and economic reasons, assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection prevalence and immunity are important to adapt decisions to current demands. Hence, immunoassays for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are introduced rapidly without requiring FDA emergency use authorization approval. Thus, evaluation of test performance predominantly relies on laboratories. This study aimed to evaluate the test performance of recently launched commercial immunoassays in serum and plasma samples. METHODS: 51 serum samples from 26 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection after end of quarantine and 25 control patients were analyzed using anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassays from Roche, Euroimmun and Epitope to assess diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. 20 matching pairs of serum and plasma samples were included to analyze comparability between different specimens. RESULTS: Overall, a diagnostic sensitivity of 92.3%, 96.2-100% and 100% with a respective diagnostic specificity of 100%, 100% and 84-86% for the immunoassays from Roche, Euroimmun and Epitope were determined. In total, 84-96% of samples were correctly classified as negative and 92.3-95.2% as positive. The level of concordance between plasma- and serum-based testing diverged between the assays (Epitope r2 = 0.97; Euroimmun r2 = 0.91; Roche r2 = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The immunoassays from Euroimmun and Roche revealed a higher specificity than the Epitope assay without a substantial drop of diagnostic sensitivity. Significant differences between plasma- and serum-based testing highlights the need for determination of appropriate cut-offs per specimen type. Hence, there is an urgent need for test harmonization and establishment of quality standards for an appropriate use of COVID-19 serological tests.

Results of the first external quality assessment scheme (EQA) for isolation and analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA).

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is considered to have a high potential for future management of malignancies. This pilot external quality assessment (EQA) scheme aimed to address issues of analytical quality in this new area of laboratory diagnostics. METHODS: The EQA scheme consisted of three 2-mL EDTA-plasma samples spiked with fragmented genomic DNA with a mutant allele frequency ranging from 0% to 10% dedicated to the analysis of nine known sequence variations in KRAS codon 12/13 and of BRAF V600E. Laboratories reported: (1) time elapsed for processing, (2) storage temperatures, (3) methods for extraction and quantification, (4) genotyping methodologies and (5) results. RESULTS: Specimens were sent to 42 laboratories from 10 European countries; 72.3% reported to isolate cell-free DNA (cfDNA) manually, 62.5% used the entire plasma volume for cfDNA isolation and 38.5% used >10% of cfDNA extracted for downstream genotyping. Of the methods used for quantification, PicoGreen demonstrated the lowest coefficient of variation (33.7%). For genotyping, 11 different methods were reported with the highest error rate observed for Sanger sequencing and the lowest for highly sensitive approaches like digital PCR. In total, 197 genotypes were determined with an overall error rate of 6.09%. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot EQA scheme illustrates the current variability in multiple phases of cfDNA processing and analysis of ctDNA resulting in an overall error rate of 6.09%. The areas with the greatest variance and clinical impact included specimen volume, cfDNA quantification method, and preference of genotyping platform. Regarding quality assurance, there is an urgent need for harmonisation of procedures and workflows.

Thirteen Years of an International External Quality Assessment Scheme for Genotyping: Results and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal laboratory procedures resulting in genotyping errors, misdiagnosis, or incorrect reporting bear greatly on a patient's health management, therapeutic decisions made on their behalf, and ultimate outcome. Participation in external quality assessment (EQA) is a key element of quality assurance in molecular genetic diagnostics. Therefore, the Reference Institute for Bioanalytics has tried for 13 years to improve the quality of genetic testing by offering an EQA for different clinically relevant sequence variations. METHODS: Within each of the biannual EQA schemes offered, up to 18 samples of lyophilized human genomic DNA were provided for up to 50 different molecular genetic tests. Laboratories were asked to use their routine procedures for genotyping. At least 2 expert peer assessors reviewed the final returns. Data from 2002 to 2014 were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 82 462 reported results from 812 characterized samples were evaluated. Globally, the number of participants increased each year along with the number of sequence variations offered. The error rate decreased significantly over the years with an overall error rate of 1.44%. Additionally, a decreased error rate for samples repeated over time was noted. Interestingly, the error rate showed a high difference depending on the locus analyzed and the method used. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evaluation of this long-term EQA scheme, various recommendations can be given to improve the quality of molecular genetic testing, such as the use of 2 different methods for genotyping. Furthermore, some methods are inappropriate for analysis of certain sequence variations.

The neutrophil recombinatorial TCR-like immune receptor is expressed across the entire human life span but repertoire diversity declines in old age.

Recent evidence has revealed the existence of T cell receptor (TCR) αß-based recombinatorial immune receptors in phagocytes. Here, we performed a systematic survey of the variable ß-chain repertoires of the neutrophil TCR-like αß immunoreceptor (referred to as TCRL(n)αß) in defined cohorts of young and old individuals. Peripheral blood CD15(+) neutrophils from young adults (age 30 ± 7 years, n=12) expressed an average number of 13 ± 6 distinct TCRL(n) Vß-chains from the total pool of 25 human Vß-chains. Neutrophils from aged subjects (age 76 ± 6 years, n=12) also consitutively express the TCRL(n), however, only a small number of Vß-chains is used (4 ± 2). Consistent with this, the average number of expressed CDR3 Vß length variants was fourfold higher in young individuals than in aged subjects (33 ± 24 vs. 8 ± 3). Young adults showed broad usage of all TCRL(n) Vß-chains. In contrast, >70years individuals displayed a striking repertoire polarization towards the TCRL(n) Vß1 and Vß5b chains and a high degree of Vß5b clonotype sharing. Our study reveals broad TCRL(n) repertoire diversity in young adults and demonstrates that the neutrophil variable immune receptor is expressed throughout the entire human life span. The marked decline in TCRL(n) repertoire diversity in old age identifies a novel mechanism of immunosenescence in neutrophils.