scholarly journals The MTB/MDR ELITe MGB® Kit: Performance Assessment for Pulmonary, Extra-Pulmonary, and Resistant Tuberculosis Diagnosis, and Integration in the Laboratory Workflow of a French Center

Pathogens ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 176
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Hodille ◽  
Charlotte Genestet ◽  
Thomas Delque ◽  
Luna Ruffel ◽  
Yvonne Benito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Antimicrobial Susceptibility ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Resistant Tuberculosis ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Extra Pulmonary ◽  
Easy Integration ◽  
Laboratory Workflow

A rapid and reliable diagnostic for tuberculosis, including the detection of both rifampicin (RIF) and isoniazid (INH) resistance, is essential for appropriate patient care. Nucleic acid amplification tests are a fast alternative to methods based on Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTB) cultures. Thus, the performance of the MDR/MTB ELITe MGB® Kit on the ELITe InGenius® platform was retrospectively evaluated for MTB detection on pulmonary and extra-pulmonary samples and for RIF/INH resistance detection on MTB strains. The sensitivity and specificity of the kit for MTB detection compared to the MTB culture were 80.0% and 100.0%, respectively. For the antimicrobial susceptibility prediction, the agreement with phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) was 92.0%. For RIF, the sensitivity was 100.0% and the specificity was 95.5%. For INH, the sensitivity and specificity were 75.0% and 100.0%, respectively. A single RIF false-positive result was obtained for a strain with a low level of RIF resistance that was not detected by phenotypic AST, but carrying a rpoB L452P mutation. INH false-negative results (3) were due to mutations on the katG gene that were not probed by the test. Overall, the MTB/MDR ELITe MGB® Kit presents a strong performance for MTB detection and for the detection of both RIF and INH resistance, with an easy integration in laboratory workflow thanks to its fully automatized system.

Pearls and Pitfalls of Interpretation in CT Colonography

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-148
Author(s):  
Michael Schonberger ◽  
Philippe Lefere ◽  
Abraham H. Dachman
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Ct Colonography ◽  
False Negative ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
The Common

The accuracy of computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC) requires that the radiologist be well trained in the recognition of pitfalls of interpretation. In order to achieve a high sensitivity and specificity, the interpreting radiologist must be well versed in the causes of both false-positive and false-negative results. In this article, we review the common and uncommon pitfalls of interpretation in CTC.

scholarly journals Fluorometric detection of HIV-1 genome through use of an internal control, inosine-substituted primers, and microtiter plate format

1996 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 696-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
B Gérard ◽  
C Peponnet ◽  
G Brunie ◽  
H Cavé ◽  
E Denamur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Enzymatic Reaction ◽  
Pcr Amplification ◽  
Microtiter Plate ◽  
Fluorometric Detection ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Hiv 1

Abstract We describe a PCR-based fluorometric assay for the detection of the HIV-1 genome. This technique consists of a reverse hybridization with oligonucleotide probes covalently coated onto a microtiter plate as a solid support. Several improvements to the PCR amplification and detection steps gave greater sensitivity and specificity for HIV-1 screening and resulted in a convenient and rapid technique. False-positive results were avoided by using uracyl DNA glycosylase. False-negative results from the presence of PCR inhibitors were detected by coamplifying an internal control with the viral sequence. False-negative results from viral genome variability were limited by using two pairs of primers and by incorporating inosine at the primer positions corresponding to viral polymorphic nucleotides. Furthermore, the hybridization buffer and enzymatic reaction were optimized to increase the assay's sensitivity. The sensitivity and specificity of the fluorometric detection were similar to those of radioisotopic oligonucleotide solution hybridization; however, hands-on time was reduced, and the use of radioactivity was eliminated. We have used this technique routinely on 115 samples and obtained 100% specificity and high sensitivity (only one false-negative result) according to viral culture and (or) serological status of the patients.

Problematic aspects of diagnostics of mers-CoV-2 coronavirus infection using reverse-transcriptional PCR

Biomics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 564-590
Author(s):  
A.R. Mavzyutov ◽  
R.R. Garafutdinov ◽  
E.Yu. Khalikova ◽  
R.A. Yuldashev ◽  
R.I. Khusainova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
False Negative ◽  
Virus Genome ◽  
Test System ◽  
Probability Of Detection ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Hybridization Probes ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Coronavirus Infection ◽  
The One

The paper considers the problematic aspects of detecting a new coronavirus infection using RT-PCR, which often lead to false negative diagnostic results, which occur both at the preanalytic stage and during nucleic acid amplification, including the interpretation of the obtained data. The viral load in humans was evaluated and assumptions were made about the expected number of viral particles in the studied oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal samples. The list of diagnostic test systems approved for use in the Russian Federation for detecting SARS-CoV-2 with their brief characteristics is given. The necessity of simultaneous use of several targets in the coronavirus genome in one test system detected by probes with the same fluorochrome is noted, which on the one hand increases the probability of detection by increasing the signal, and on the other hand eliminates the false negative results that could occur in the case of mutations in the virus genome at the sites of annealing primers and hybridization probes.

scholarly journals The value of repeat patient testing for SARS-CoV-2: real-world experience during the first wave

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Zhu ◽  
Margaret Creagh ◽  
Chao Qi ◽  
Shannon Galvin ◽  
Maureen Bolon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
False Negative ◽  
Laboratory Diagnosis ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Repeat Testing ◽  
The Third ◽  
Reverse Transcription Pcr ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Control And Prevention

Introduction. Reports of false-negative quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) results from patients with high clinical suspension for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), suggested that a negative result produced by a nucleic acid amplification assays (NAAs) did not always exclude the possibility of COVID-19 infection. Repeat testing has been used by clinicians as a strategy in an to attempt to improve laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 and overcome false-negative results in particular. Aim. To investigate whether repeat testing is helpful for overcoming false-negative results. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed our experience with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing, focusing on the yield of repeat patient testing for improving SARS-CoV-2 detection by NAA. Results. We found that the yield from using repeat testing to identify false-negative patients was low. When the first test produced a negative result, only 6 % of patients tested positive by the second test. The yield decreased to 1.7 and then 0 % after the third and fourth tests, respectively. When comparing the results produced by three assays, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) SARS CoV-2 RT-qPCR panel, Xpert Xpress CoV-2 and ID NOW COVID-19, the ID NOW assay was associated with the highest number of patients who tested negative initially but positive on repeat testing. The CDC SARS CoV-2 RT-qPCR panel produced the highest number of indeterminate results. Repeat testing resolved more than 90 % of indeterminate/invalid results. Conclusions. The yield from using repeat testing to identify false-negative patients was low. Repeat testing was best used for resolving indeterminate/invalid results.

scholarly journals Droplet Digital PCR – A Superior Complementary Technique for SARS-CoV-2 Detection

2020 ◽  
pp. 12-15
Author(s):  
I. M. Hussaini ◽  
S. Gide ◽  
B. Musa ◽  
M. A. Sulaiman ◽  
A. Usman
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Standard Technique ◽  
Digital Pcr ◽  
Droplet Digital Pcr ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Current Reference Standard

Accurate and timely SARS-CoV-2 detection in suspected persons is crucial in the fight against its spread. Many techniques have been developed to meet up with the continuously growing demand, however some of these techniques lack the required accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. The current reference standard technique for SARS-CoV-2 detection is RT-PCR, but studies have shown that false-negative results are inevitable and data can be non-reproducible when samples and primers are not appropriately verified and validated. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is a newly introduced technique that performs precise nucleic acid quantification. Researchers have evaluated the efficacy of ddPCR and the technique has shown promising results even in specimens with low viral load. ddPCR has shown increased accuracy, precision, sensitivity and specificity. Furthermore, it is less affected by annealing and amplification inhibitors. This suggests that ddPCR can be used as a complementary detection technique especially in convalescent cases.

scholarly journals Performance of seven commercial automated assays for the detection of low levels of anti-Toxoplasma IgG in French immunocompromised patients

Parasite ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiphaine Douet ◽  
Catherine Armengol ◽  
Elena Charpentier ◽  
Pamela Chauvin ◽  
Sophie Cassaing ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Tissue Cyst ◽  
Grey Zone ◽  
Immunocompromised Patients ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Acute Infections ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Low Levels

Background: Immunocompromised patients are at high risk for the development of severe toxoplasmosis from tissue cyst reactivation, the most frequently, or from recently acquired acute infections. Knowledge of serologic status is therefore crucial. Screening for toxoplasmosis is sometimes performed while patients are already immunocompromised and have a low or even undetectable IgG titer by routine automated enzyme immunoassays. The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of seven reagents for the detection of low levels of IgG. Sera from 354 patients were collected and analysed. Results: Elecsys® offered the best analytic performances, superior to those of Architect® and Platelia®, which were superior to those of Access II® and TGS TA®. Vidas II® and Liaison II® reagents exhibited poor analytical performances in this cohort. For Elecsys®, Platelia® and Architect®, new thresholds for the grey zone and positive zone have been defined to improve the sensitivity of these reagents while maintaining excellent specificity. Conclusions: Commercialized assays for toxoplasmosis screening are not suitable for IgG low-level detection in patients without adapting the supplier thresholds to avoid false negative results and risk generalized toxoplasmosis.

scholarly journals High-surety isothermal amplification and detection of SARS-CoV-2, including with crude enzymes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanchita Bhadra ◽  
Timothy E. Riedel ◽  
Simren Lakhotia ◽  
Nicholas D. Tran ◽  
Andrew D. Ellington
Keyword(s):  
Point Of Care ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Human Saliva ◽  
Isothermal Amplification ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Target Sequence ◽  
One Pot ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Polymerase Chain

ABSTRACTIsothermal nucleic acid amplification tests (iNAT), such as loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), are good alternatives to polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based amplification assays, especially for point-of-care and low resource use, in part because they can be carried out with relatively simple instrumentation. However, iNATs can generate spurious amplicons, especially in the absence of target sequences, resulting in false positive results. This is especially true if signals are based on non-sequence-specific probes, such as intercalating dyes or pH changes. In addition, pathogens often prove to be moving, evolving targets, and can accumulate mutations that will lead to inefficient primer binding and thus false negative results. Internally redundant assays targeting different regions of the target sequence can help to reduce such false negatives. Here we describe rapid conversion of three previously described SARS-CoV-2 LAMP assays that relied on non-sequence-specific readout into assays that can be visually read using sequence-specific fluorogenic oligonucleotide strand exchange (OSD) probes. We evaluate one-pot operation of both individual and multiplex LAMP-OSD assays and demonstrate detection of SARS-CoV-2 virions in crude human saliva.

scholarly journals Nucleic Acid and Immunological Diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: Processes, Platforms and Pitfalls

Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 866
Author(s):  
Avinash Premraj ◽  
Abi George Aleyas ◽  
Binita Nautiyal ◽  
Thaha J Rasool
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Control Strategies ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Test Methods ◽  
Molecular Technique ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Host Tissues

Accurate diagnosis at an early stage of infection is essential for the successful management of any contagious disease. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus is a pandemic that has affected 214 countries affecting more than 37.4 million people causing 1.07 million deaths as of the second week of October 2020. The primary diagnosis of the infection is done either by the molecular technique of RT-qPCR by detecting portions of the RNA of the viral genome or through immunodiagnostic tests by detecting the viral proteins or the antibodies produced by the host. As the demand for the test increased rapidly many naive manufacturers entered the market with novel kits and more and more laboratories also entered the diagnostic arena making the test result more error-prone. There are serious debates globally and regionally on the sensitivity and specificity of these tests and about the overall accuracy and reliability of the tests for decision making on control strategies. The significance of the test is also complexed by the presence of asymptomatic carriers, re-occurrence of infection in cured patients as well as by the varied incubation periods of the infection and shifting of the viral location in the host tissues. In this paper, we review the techniques available for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and probable factors that can reduce the sensitivity and specificity of the different test methods currently in vogue. We also provide a checklist of factors to be considered to avoid fallacious practices to reduce false positive and false negative results by the clinical laboratories.

scholarly journals Nucleic Acid and Immunological Diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: Processes, Platforms and Pitfalls

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avinash Premraj ◽  
Abi George Aleyas ◽  
Binita Nautiyal ◽  
Thaha Jamal Rasool
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Control Strategies ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Test Methods ◽  
Molecular Technique ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Host Tissues

Accurate diagnosis at an early stage of infection is essential for the successful management of any contagious disease. The COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a pandemic that has affected 214 countries affecting more than 30.8 million people causing 0.957 million deaths as of third week of September, 2020. The primary diagnosis of the infection is done either by the molecular technique of RT-qPCR by detecting portions of the RNA of the viral genome or through immunodiagnostic tests by detecting the viral proteins or the antibodies produced by the host. As the demand for the test increased rapidly many naive manufacturers entered the market with novel kits and more and more laboratories also entered the diagnostic arena making the test result more error-prone. There are serious debates globally and regionally on the sensitivity and specificity of these tests and about the overall accuracy and reliability of the tests for decision making on control strategies. The significance of the test is also complexed by the presence of asymptomatic carriers, re-occurrence of infection in cured patients as well as by the varied incubation periods of the infection and shifting of the viral location in the host tissues. In this paper, we review the techniques available for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and probable factors that can reduce the sensitivity and specificity of the different test methods currently in vogue. We also provide a check-list of factors to be taken care to avoid fallacious practices to reduce false positive and false negative results by the clinical laboratories

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document