SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19, requires reliable diagnostic methods to track the circulation of this virus. Following the development of RT-qPCR methods to meet this diagnostic need in January 2020, it became clear from interlaboratory studies that the reported Ct values obtained for the different laboratories showed high variability. Despite this the Ct values were explored as a quantitative cut off to aid clinical decisions based on viral load. Consequently, there was a need to introduce standards to support estimation of SARS-CoV-2 viral load in diagnostic specimens. In a collaborative study, INSTAND established two reference materials (RMs) containing heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 with SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads of ~107 copies/mL (RM 1) and ~106 copies/mL (RM 2), respectively. Quantification was performed by RT-qPCR using synthetic SARS-CoV-2 RNA standards and digital PCR. Between November 2020 and February 2021, German laboratories were invited to use the two RMs to anchor their Ct values measured in routine diagnostic specimens, with the Ct values of the two RMs. A total of 305 laboratories in Germany were supplied with RM 1 and RM 2. The laboratories were requested to report their measured Ct values together with details on the PCR method they used to INSTAND. This resultant 1,109 data sets were differentiated by test system and targeted gene region. Our findings demonstrate that an indispensable prerequisite for linking Ct values to SARS-CoV-2 viral loads is that they are treated as being unique to an individual laboratory. For this reason, clinical guidance based on viral loads should not cite Ct values. The RMs described were a suitable tool to determine the specific laboratory Ct for a given viral load. Furthermore, as Ct values can also vary between runs when using the same instrument, such RMs could be used as run controls to ensure reproducibility of the quantitative measurements.

BackgroundA multi-dimensional model can be a useful tool for estimating the general impact of disease on the different sectors of the healthcare system. We chose the sexually transmitted disease syphilis for our model due to the good quality of reported data in Germany.MethodsThe model included gender- and age-stratified incident cases of syphilis (in- and outpatients) provided by a German statutory health insurance company, as well as seroprevalence data on syphilis in first-time blood donors. Age standardized rates were calculated based on the standard German population. The test quality was assessed by extrapolating the number of false-positive and false-negative results based on data from Europe-wide external quality assessment (EQA) schemes. The model analysis was validated with the reported cases and diagnosis-related group (DRG)-statistics from 2010 to 2012. The annual direct and indirect economic burden was estimated based on the outcomes of our model.ResultsThe standardized results were slightly higher than the results reported between 2010 and 2012. This could be due to an underassessment of cases in Germany or due to limitations of the dataset. The number of estimated inpatients was predicted with an accuracy of 89.8 %. Results from EQA schemes indicated an average sensitivity of 92.8 % and an average specificity of 99.9 % for the recommended sequential testing for syphilis. Based on our model, we estimated a total average minimal annual burden of €20,292,110 for syphilis on the German healthcare system between 2010 and 2012.ConclusionsThe linking of claims data, results from EQA schemes, and blood donor surveillance can be a useful tool for assessing the burden of disease on the healthcare system. It can help raise awareness in populations potentially at risk for infectious diseases, demonstrate the need to educate potential risk groups, and may help with predictive cost calculations and planning.

The glycoproteins alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) have long been approved as biomarkers for diagnosing and monitoring tumors. International Reference Preparations (IRPs) have been around since 1975. Nevertheless, manufacturer-dependent differences have been reported, indicating a lack of harmonization. This paper analyzes data from 15 external quality assessment (EQA) surveys conducted worldwide between 2018 and 2022. The aim was to gain insight into the longitudinal development of manufacturer-dependent differences for CEA and AFP. In each survey, participating laboratories received two samples with different tumor marker levels. Inter- and intra-assay variability was analyzed and the mean 80% and 90% of the manufacturer collectives were compared to the evaluation criteria of the German Medical Association (RiliBÄK). The median EQA results for CEA revealed manufacturer-dependent differences between the highest and lowest collective of up to 100%; for AFP, the median differences mostly remained below 40%. The coefficients of variation were predominantly low for both markers. We concluded that the current assays for AFP and CEA detection are better harmonized than previously reported. The assays displayed a good robustness; however, a narrowing of the current assessment limits in EQA schemes could further enhance the quality of laboratory testing.

Background In May 2022, the monkeypox virus (MPXV) spread into non-endemic countries and the global community was quick to test the lessons learned from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Due to its symptomatic resemblance to other diseases, like the non-pox virus varicella zoster (chickenpox), polymerase chain reaction methods play an important role in correctly diagnosing the rash-causing pathogen. INSTAND quickly established a new external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for MPXV and orthopoxvirus (OPXV) DNA detection to assess the current performance quality of the laboratory tests. Methods We analyzed quantitative and qualitative data of the first German EQA for MPXV and OPXV DNA detection. The survey included one negative and three MPXV-positive samples with different MPX viral loads. The threshold cycle (Ct) or other measures defining the quantification cycle (Cq) were analyzed in an assay-specific manner. A Passing Bablok fit was used to investigate the performance at laboratory level. Results 141 qualitative datasets were reported by 131 laboratories for MPXV detection and 68 qualitative datasets by 65 laboratories for OPXV detection. More than 96% of the results were correctly identified as negative and more than 97% correctly identified as positive. An analysis of the reported Ct/Cq values showed a large spread of these values of up to 12 Ct/Cq. Nevertheless, there is a good correlation of results for the different MPXV concentrations at laboratory level. Only a few quantitative results in copies/mL were reported (MPXV: N = 5; OPXV: N = 2), but the results correlated well with the concentration differences between the EQA samples, which were to a power of ten each. Conclusion The EQA results show that laboratories performed well in detecting both MPXV and OPXV. However, Ct/Cq values should be interpreted with caution when conclusions are drawn about the viral load as long as metrological traceability is not granted.

No abstract