External quality assessments for SARS-CoV-2 genome detection in Austria: A comparison of the first postpandemic round with results from the pandemic era

• Published in: Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 2024-08, Vol.136 (15-16), p.429-438
• Main Authors: Buchta, Christoph, Aberle, Stephan W., Görzer, Irene, Griesmacher, Andrea, Müller, Mathias M., Neuwirth, Erich, Puchhammer-Stöckl, Elisabeth, Weseslindtner, Lukas, Camp, Jeremy V.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Austria - epidemiology; COVID-19 - epidemiology; COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing - standards; Endocrinology; Gastroenterology; Humans; Internal Medicine; Laboratories, Clinical; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Original Article; Pandemics; Pneumology/Respiratory System; Quality Assurance, Health Care; Reproducibility of Results; SARS-CoV-2 - genetics
• ISSN: 0043-5325; 1613-7671; 1613-7671
• DOI: 10.1007/s00508-024-02353-1

Summary Background External quality assessment (EQA) schemes provide objective feedback to participating laboratories about the performance of their analytical systems and information about overall regional analytical performance. The EQAs are particularly important during pandemics as they also assess the reliability of individual test results and show opportunities to improve test strategies. With the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, the testing frequency significantly decreased in Austria. Here, we analyzed whether this decrease had an effect on participation and/or performance in SARS-CoV‑2 virus detection EQAs, as compared to the pandemic era. Material and methods Identical samples were sent to all participating laboratories, and the EQA provider evaluated the agreement of the reported results with defined targets. The EQA was operated under two schemes with identical samples and therefore we analyzed it as a single EQA round. The performance of testing was reported as true positive ratios, comparing the post-pandemic data to previous rounds. Furthermore, subgroups of participants were analyzed stratified by laboratory type (medical or nonmedical) and the test system format (fully automated or requiring manual steps). Results While the frequency of false negative results per sample did not change during the 3 years of the pandemic (5.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.1–8.4%), an average per sample false negative ratio of 4.3% was observed in the first post-pandemic EQA (0%, 1.8%, and 11% for the 3 positive samples included in the test panel, n  = 109 test results per sample). In this first post-pandemic EQA medical laboratories (average 0.4% false negative across 3 samples, n  = 90) and automated test systems (average 1.2% false negative, n  = 261) had lower false negative ratios than nonmedical laboratories (22.8%, n  = 19) and manual test systems (16.7%, n  = 22). These lower average ratios were due to a low concentration sample, where nonmedical laboratories reported 36.8% and manual test systems 54.5% true positive results. Conclusion Overall ratios of true positive results were below the mean of all results during the pandemic but were similar to the first round of the pandemic. A lower post-pandemic true positive ratio was associated with specific laboratory types and assay formats, particularly for samples with low concentration. The EQAs will continue to monitor the laboratory performance to ensure the same quality of epidemiological data after