Rhoads, Daniel D.

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the marketing of manufacturers’ in vitro diagnostic tests (IVDs), including assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Context.— Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a recently emerged, currently pandemic virus, and the etiologic agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clinical testing for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has rapidly become widespread, but data regarding the interlaboratory performance of these serologic assays are limited. Objective.— To describe the development and initial results of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) SARS-CoV-2 Serology Survey. Design.— Members from the CAP Microbiology and Diagnostic Immunology and Flow Cytometry Committees formed a working group to support development of a new proficiency testing survey for anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Supplemental questions in the survey assessed the state of SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing among participating laboratories as of July 2020. Results were analyzed for agreement by immunoglobulin (Ig) isotype tested, assay manufacturer, and methodology. Results.— A total of 4125 qualitative results were received from 1110 laboratories participating in the first survey. Qualitative agreement for assays measuring anti–SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies or IgG was greater than 90% for all 3 samples in the survey. Qualitative agreement for IgM and IgA for the negative sample was greater than 95%, but lacked consensus for the other 2 samples. Conclusions.— These initial data suggest overall excellent agreement and comparable performance for most qualitative anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG and total antibody assays across all participating clinical laboratories, regardless of specific target antigen or assay methodology.

Plazomicin was tested against 697 recently acquired carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from the Great Lakes region of the United States. Plazomicin MIC 50 and MIC 90 values were 0.25 and 1 mg/liter, respectively; 680 isolates (97.6%) were susceptible (MICs of ≤2 mg/liter), 9 (1.3%) intermediate (MICs of 4 mg/liter), and 8 (1.1%) resistant (MICs of >32 mg/liter). Resistance was associated with rmtF -, rmtB -, or armA -encoded 16S rRNA methyltransferases in all except 1 isolate.

Context.— Serum tests used for the screening and diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathies include serum protein electrophoresis (SPE; agarose gel or capillary zone), immunofixation (IFE) and immunosubtraction capillary electrophoresis, serum free light chains, quantitative immunoglobulins, and heavy/light–chain combinations. Urine protein electrophoresis and urine IFE may also be used to identify Bence-Jones proteinuria. Objective.— To assess current laboratory practice for monoclonal gammopathy testing. Design.— In April 2016, a voluntary questionnaire was distributed to 923 laboratories participating in a protein electrophoresis proficiency testing survey. Results.— Seven hundred seventy-four laboratories from 38 countries and regions completed the questionnaire (83.9% response rate; 774 of 923). The majority of participants (68.6%; 520 of 758) used agarose gel electrophoresis as their SPE method, whereas 31.4% (238 of 758) used capillary zone electrophoresis. The most common test approaches used in screening were SPE with reflex to IFE/immunosubtraction capillary electrophoresis (39.3%; 299 of 760); SPE only (19.1%; 145 of 760); SPE and IFE or immunosubtraction capillary electrophoresis (13.9%; 106 of 760); and SPE with IFE, serum free light chain, and quantitative immunoglobulins (11.8%; 90 of 760). Only 39.8% (305 of 767) of laboratories offered panel testing for ordering convenience. Although SPE was used by most laboratories in diagnosing new cases of myeloma, when laboratories reported the primary test used to follow patients with monoclonal gammopathy, only 55.7% (403 of 724) chose SPE, with the next most common selections being IFE (18.9%; 137 of 724), serum free light chain (11.7%; 85 of 724), and immunosubtraction capillary electrophoresis (2.1%; 15 of 724). Conclusions.— Ordering and testing practices for the screening and diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy vary widely across laboratories. Improving utilization management and report content, as well as recognition and development of laboratory-directed testing guidelines, may serve to enhance the clinical value of testing.