RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Recent work has demonstrated that automated fluorescence flow cytometry (FLC) is a potential alternative for the detection and quantification of Plasmodium parasites. The objective of this study was to apply this novel FLC method to detect and quantify Babesia parasites in venous blood and compare results to light microscopy and polymerase chain reaction methods. METHODS: An automated hematology/malaria analyzer (XN-31; Sysmex) was used to detect and quantify B microti-infected red blood cells from residual venous blood samples (n = 250: Babesia positive, n = 170; Babesia negative, n = 80). As no instrument software currently exists for Babesia, qualitative and quantitative machine learning (ML) algorithms were developed to facilitate analysis. RESULTS: Performance of the ML models was verified against the XN-31 software using P falciparum-infected samples. When applied to Babesia-infected samples, the qualitative ML model demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.956 (sensitivity, 95.9%; specificity, 83.3%) relative to polymerase chain reaction. For valid scattergrams, the qualitive model achieved an AUC of 1.0 (sensitivity and specificity, 100%), while the quantitative model demonstrated an AUC of 0.986 (sensitivity, 94.4%; specificity, 100%). CONCLUSIONS: This investigation demonstrates that Babesia parasites can be detected and quantified directly from venous blood using FLC. Although promising, opportunities remain to improve the general applicability of the method.
Asunto(s)
Babesia , Babesiosis , Eritrocitos , Citometría de Flujo , Citometría de Flujo/métodos , Humanos , Babesiosis/diagnóstico , Babesiosis/sangre , Eritrocitos/parasitología , Babesia/aislamiento & purificación , Babesia/genética , Aprendizaje Automático , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa/métodos , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
To meet the testing demands and overcome supply chain issues during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, many clinical laboratories validated multiple SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing platforms. Here, we compare three different molecular assays for SARS-CoV-2 that received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In order to determine the agreement among Roche cobas® SARS-CoV-2 Test (Cobas), Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (ART), and Mayo Clinic Laboratory SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection Assay (Mayo LDT), 100 each of anterior nares (AN), nasopharyngeal (NP), oropharyngeal (OP), and NP+OP swabs were tested on each platform. The consensus result was defined as agreement by 2 or more methods. Furthermore, 30 positive NP swabs from each molecular platform (n = 90 total) were tested on the three platforms to determine the PPA among positive samples. ART platform called more specimens positive than the other two platforms. All three assays performed with greater than 90% agreement for NP specimens throughout the study.
Asunto(s)
Prueba de Ácido Nucleico para COVID-19/métodos , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Técnicas de Diagnóstico Molecular/métodos , SARS-CoV-2/aislamiento & purificación , Humanos , Nasofaringe/virología , Nariz/virología , Pandemias , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa , Sistema Respiratorio/virología , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Manejo de Especímenes/métodosRESUMEN
Rapid and accurate diagnostic testing is essential to bring the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic to an end. As the demand for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing continues to increase amid supply shortages, many laboratories have investigated the use of sources other than nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Saliva and midturbinate (MT) nasal swabs are attractive alternatives, as they allow for self-collection and are well accepted by patients. Saliva also requires limited consumables. We compared the performance of health care provider-collected NP swabs, patient-collected MT swabs, and patient-collected saliva specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a laboratory-developed PCR assay that had received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA. Of 281 total evaluable samples, 33 (11.7%) NP swabs, 33 (11.7%) MT swabs, and 32 (11.4%) saliva specimens were positive for SARS-CoV-2 following resolution of discordant results. Compared to NP swabs, saliva exhibited a sensitivity of 90.9% (30/33) and specificity of 99.2% (246/248), while patient-collected MT swabs exhibited a sensitivity of 93.9% (31/33) and specificity of 99.2% (246/248). When comparing to the consensus standard, the sensitivity was found to be 100% (31/31) for both NP and MT swabs and 96.8% (30/31) for saliva specimens, while specificity was the same in both NP swabs and saliva specimens (98.8% [247/250]) and 99.2% (248/250) for MT swabs. Pretreatment of saliva with proteinase K and heating for 15 min prior to extraction reduced the invalid rate from 26.7% (52/195) to 0% (0/195). These data show that midturbinate nasal swabs and saliva are suitable sources for self-collection in individuals who require routine monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , Nasofaringe , Pandemias , ARN Viral , Saliva , Manejo de EspecímenesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The gold standard for malaria diagnosis is the examination of thick and thin blood films. Thick films contain 10 to 20 times more blood than thin films, correspondingly providing increased sensitivity for malaria screening. A potential complication of thick film preparations is sloughing of the blood droplet from the slide during staining or rinsing, resulting in the loss of sample. In this work, two methods for improving thick film slide adherence ('scratch' (SCM) and 'acetone dip' (ADM) methods) were compared to the 'standard method' (SM) of thick film preparation. METHODS: Standardized blood droplets from 26 previously examined EDTA whole blood specimens (22 positive and four negative) were concurrently spread on glass slides using the SM, ADM, and SCM. For the SM and ADM prepared slides, the droplet was gently spread to an approximate 22 millimeters in diameter spot on the slide using the edge of a second glass slide. For the SCM, the droplet was spread by carefully grinding (or scratching) it into the slide with the point of a second glass slide. Slides were dried for one hour in a laminar flow hood. For the ADM, slides were dipped once in an acetone filled Coplin jar and allowed to air dry. All slides were then Giemsa-stained and examined in a blinded manner. Adherence was assessed by blinded reviewers. RESULTS: No significant or severe defects were observed for slides prepared with the SCM. In contrast, 8 slides prepared by the ADM and 3 prepared using the SM displayed significant or severe defects. Thick films prepared by the three methods were microscopically indistinguishable and concordant results (positive or negative) were obtained for the three methods. Estimated parasitaemia of the blood samples ranged from 25 to 429,169 parasites/µL of blood. CONCLUSIONS: The SCM is an inexpensive, rapid, and simple method that improves the adherence of thick blood films to standard glass slides without altering general slide preparation, microscopic appearance or interpretability. Using the SCM, thick films can be reliably examined less than two hours after sample receipt. This represents a significant diagnostic improvement over protocols requiring extended drying periods.
Asunto(s)
Sangre/parasitología , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico/métodos , Malaria/diagnóstico , Microscopía/métodos , Parasitología/métodos , Manejo de Especímenes/métodos , Humanos , Parasitemia/diagnóstico , Coloración y Etiquetado/métodosRESUMEN
We evaluated a commercial multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay in a cross-sectional study among 81 adult and pediatric outpatients-40 cases with upper respiratory infection symptoms and 41 asymptomatic controls-from February to April 2008. Two specimens (throat swab and nasal swab) from each participant were tested using the EraGen MultiCode-PLx Respiratory Virus Panel that detects 17 viral targets. Throat swabs were also tested for Group A Streptococcus (GAS) by PCR. Respiratory viruses were detected in 22/40 (55%) cases and in 3/41 (7%) controls (P < 0.001). GAS was detected in 10 (25%) cases; GAS and respiratory virus co-infection was found in 4 (10%). Agreement between nasal and throat swabs for viral detection was 69% in cases and 95% in controls. Of 22 cases with a detectable virus, 12 (54%) were picked up by only 1 (throat or nasal) specimen, and the detection rate was increased by combining results of nasal and throat swab testing.