Time to address quality control processes applied to antibody testing for infectious diseases.

As testing for infectious diseases moves from manual, biological testing such as complement fixation to high throughput automated autoanalyzer, the methods for controlling these assays have also changed to reflect those used in clinical chemistry. However, there are many differences between infectious disease serology and clinical chemistry testing, and these differences have not been considered when applying traditional quality control methods to serology. Infectious disease serology, which is highly regulated, detects antibodies of varying classes and to multiple and different antigens that change according to the organisms' genotype/serotype and stage of disease. Although the tests report a numerical value (usually signal to cut-off), they are not measuring an amount of antibodies, but the intensity of binding within the test system. All serology assays experience lot-to-lot variation, making the use of quality control methods used in clinical chemistry inappropriate. In many jurisdictions, the use of the manufacturer-provided kit controls is mandatory to validate the test run. Use of third-party controls, which are highly recommended by ISO 15189 and the World Health Organization, must be manufactured in a manner whereby they have minimal lot-to-lot variation and at a level where they detect exceptional variation. This paper outlines the differences between clinical chemistry and infectious disease serology and offers a range of recommendations when addressing the quality control of infectious disease serology.

Low Genetic Diversity of Hepatitis B Virus Surface Gene amongst Australian Blood Donors.

Variants in the small surface gene of hepatitis B virus (HBV), which codes for viral surface antigen (HBsAg), can affect the efficacy of HBsAg screening assays and can be associated with occult HBV infection (OBI). This study aimed to characterise the molecular diversity of the HBV small surface gene from HBV-reactive Australian blood donors. HBV isolates from 16 HBsAg-positive Australian blood donors' plasma were sequenced and genotyped by phylogenies of viral coding genes and/or whole genomes. An analysis of the genetic diversity of eight HBV small surface genes from our 16 samples was conducted and compared with HBV sequences from NCBI of 164 international (non-Australian) blood donors. Genotypes A-D were identified in our samples. The region of HBV small surface gene that contained the sequence encoding the 'a' determinant had a greater genetic diversity than the remaining part of the gene. No escape mutants or OBI-related variants were observed in our samples. Variant call analysis revealed two samples with a nucleotide deletion leading to truncation of polymerase and/or large/middle surface amino acid sequences. Overall, we found that HBV small surface gene sequences from Australian donors demonstrated a lower level of genetic diversity than those from non-Australian donor population included in the study.

Does a change in quality control results influence the sensitivity of an anti-HCV test?

Background Laboratories use quality control (QC) testing to monitor the extent of normal variation. Assay lot number changes contribute the greatest amount of variation in infectious disease serology testing. An unexpected change in six lots of an anti-HCV assay allowed the determination of the effect these lot changes made to the assay's clinical sensitivity. Methods Two sets of seroconversion samples comprising of 44 individual samples and 9 external quality assessment scheme (EQAS) samples, all positive to anti-HCV, were tested in affected and unaffected assay lots, and the difference in the quantitative and qualitative results of the samples was analyzed. Results Of 44 low-positive seroconversion samples tested in affected and unaffected assay lots, only three samples had results reported below the assay cutoff when tested on two of the six affected assay lot. A further sample had results below the cutoff for only one affected lot. None of the EQAS samples reported false-negative results. Samples having a signal to cutoff value of less than 6.0 generally had lower results in the affected lots compared with the unaffected lots. Conclusions Unexpected changes in QC reactivity related to variation, in particular assay lot changes, may affect patient results. This study demonstrated that QConnect Limits facilitated the detection of an unexpectedly large variation in QC test results, allowed for the identification of the root cause of the change, and showed that the risk associated with the change was low but credible. The use of evidence-based QC program is essential to detect changes in test systems.