SARS-CoV-2 emergency use authorization published sensitivity differences do not correlate with positivity rate in a hospital/reference laboratory setting.

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic skyrocketing demand for testing in the United States, coupled with supply chain issues, necessitated the use of multiple SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing platforms at many health centers. At our institution these platforms consisted of 8 ordered services for sample triage, using 9 emergency use authorized (EUA) SARS-CoV-2 RNA nucleic acid amplification tests resulting in 10 possible ordered service/EAU combinations. Here we review the results of the first ∼2.9 million samples tested and note the variability in positivity rates. We conclude that differences in reported limit of detection did not translate to differences in positivity rate or show correlation to discordant results observed. This highlights the importance of balancing patient testing capacity needs with the desire to have more sensitive tests.

CoaguChek and Coag-Sense PT2 Meter Point of Care INR Device Validation.

OBJECTIVE: To standardize international normalized ratio (INR) measurements and improve data integrity by enabling electronic result transmission for warfarin monitoring, two point-of-care (POC) devices were evaluated against an internal plasma INR reference method. METHODS: A multicenter study was pursued (January 24, 2022, through October 19, 2022) to compare concordance of two commercially available POC devices, Coag-Sense PT2 Meter (Coag-Sense) and CoaguChek XS Pro and Plus devices (CoaguChek), against an internal plasma INR method among patients treated with warfarin. Bias and linear regression analysis were assessed for these devices including dosing decision accuracy compared with plasma INR reference. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-nine patients treated with warfarin across three Mayo Clinic sites agreed to participate. Atrial fibrillation (n=191, 63.9%), venous thromboembolism (n=65; 21.7%), and heart valve prosthesis (n=46; 15.4%) were common anticoagulant indications with a 2.5 INR target for 280 (93.6%) of patients. For the CoaguChek devices, 243 (81.3%) of values fell within 0.2 INR units with plasma INR referent and 285 (95.3%) within 0.4 units (R2=0.93). For the Coag-Sense device, 102 (34.1%) of values fell within 0.2 INR units and 180 (60.2%) within 0.4 INR units of plasma INR values, (R2=0.83; P<.0001). Using the plasma INR as the gold standard, appropriate dosing recommendations would have occurred for 292 (97.7%) of the CoaguChek and 244 (81.6%) of the Coag-Sense results. CONCLUSION: Compared with a plasma referent, INR values obtained from the CoaguChek devices exhibited less systematic bias compared with Coag-Sense measures. This translates to a greater percentage of concordant management decisions between POC and laboratory INR methods.