Conclusion
The false negative result is considered to be due to the fact that the amount of virus genome contained in the quality control reagent used this time was below the detection limit of the LAMP method combined with the rapid extraction reagent for influenza virus. On the other hand, false positive results are considered to be due to the non-specific reaction of the NAATs. The EQA program must be continued for the proper implementation of the pathogen NAATs.
Methods
We diluted and prepared a standard product manufactured by Company A to about 2,500 copies/mL to make a positive control and distribute it with a negative control. The participants reported the use of the NAATs methods for SARS-CoV-2, the name of the real-time RT-PCR kit, the name of the detection device, the target gene(s), nucleic acid extraction kit, Threshold Cycle value in the case of RT-PCR and the Threshold time value and Differential calculation value in the case of Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) method.
Results
As a result, 17 laboratories using fully automated equipment and 34 laboratories using the RT-PCR method reported generally appropriate results in this EQA survey. On the other hand, among the laboratories that adopted the LAMP method, there were a plurality of laboratories that judged positive samples to be negative.