Evaluation of a novel heparin-iloprost-based antithrombotic formulation blood collection tube for clinical usage.

BACKGROUND: The objective of our study was to evaluate a single blood collection tube with a novel antithrombotic formulation to measure both hematological, biochemical, and d-dimer analytes. METHODS: Paired samples of gold standard blood tubes (EDTA, lithium heparin, sodium citrate) and a new antithrombotic formulation blood tube were collected from 187 patients. The new antithrombotic tube is a lithium heparin tube preloaded with a liquid form of prostacyclin analog. The novel tube was tested on seventeen hematological parameters and smears against EDTA, on fourteen biochemical parameters against lithium heparin and on d-dimer against sodium citrate. RESULTS: All correlation coefficients were close to 0.99. The Bland-Altman analyses presented a satisfactory correspondence for all analytes. All the hematological examinations demonstrated comparable results between EDTA and the novel formulation, except for platelet counts analyzed by impedance method, but not by fluorescence. We detected lower mean platelet volume with/without outliers (5.06%)/(5.13%) in the novel formulation and increased mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (2.55%). All the biochemistry analytes demonstrated comparable results between lithium heparin and the novel tube. d-dimer showed comparable results between citrated blood and the novel formulation after dilution correction. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a novel antithrombotic formulation tube with the potential to be introduced into clinical laboratories for simultaneous analysis of thirty-two blood analytes.

Long-Term Comparison of 7 SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays in the North Zealand Covid-19 Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic numerous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays have been approved through Emergency Use Authorization and require further evaluation of sensitivity and specificity in clinical laboratory settings prior to implementation. METHODS: We included 1733 samples from 375 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals of the North Zealand Covid-19 Cohort in an 8-month period. We investigated diagnostic sensitivity and specificity against consensus and PCR and interassay agreement over time for 5 SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays [Roche-nucleocapsid (NC)-total, Roche-receptor binding domain (RBD)-total, Siemens-RBD-IgG, Siemens-RBD-total, Thermo Fisher Scientific (TFS)-RBD-IgG] commercially available on automated platforms and 2 ELISA assays (TFS-RBD-total, Wantai-RBD-total). RESULTS: Early interassay discrepancy in up to 49% of samples decreased steadily during the first 18 days. By day 18, all assays had reached a plateau between 82.3% and 90.5% seropositivity compared to PCR. Assays ranked by closest agreement with the consensus model beyond day 18 (sensitivity/specificity against consensus) were as follows: Roche-RBD-total, 99.8%/100.0%; Wantai-RBD-total, 99.8%/99.7%; Roche-NC-total, 97.8%/100.0%; Siemens-RBD-total, 98.0%/98.7%; TFS-RBD-total, 96.9%/99.7%; TFS-RBD-IgG, 91.5%/100.0%; and Siemens-RBD-IgG, 94.6%/89.9%. We found that 7.8% of PCR-positive patients remained seronegative in all assays throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: All included assays had sensitivities against consensus >90% past day 18. For the current recommended use of antibody assays to detect former, undocumented Covid-19, our data suggest the use of total antibody assays rather than IgG-specific assays due to higher long-term sensitivity. Finally, a nonresponding subpopulation of 7.8% in our cohort with persistent seronegative results raises concern of a possible substantial number of people with continued low protection following natural SARS-CoV-2 infection.