The investigation determined that discordant negative vitros anti- sars-cov-2 total results were obtained from four different patient samples processed using vitros cov2tot reagent lot 0285 on a vitros 3600 immunodiagnostic system.A definitive assignable cause for the discordant, non-reactive vitros cov2tot results could not be determined.Patient 2 had tested pcr positive 1 day prior to vitros testing and patient 4 had tested pcr positive approximately 3 weeks prior to vitros testing.In addition, the vitros cov2igg result was reactive.The vitros anti-sars cov-2 total assay detects the presence of igm, iga, and/or igg antibodies.Igm antibodies to sars-cov-2 are generally detectable in blood several days after initial infection, although levels over the course of infection are not well characterized.Igg antibodies to sars-cov-2 become detectable later following infection, although detection of igg antibodies does not exclude recently infected individuals who are still contagious.It was expected that the vitros cov2tot would be concordant with the reactive vitros cov2igg results and the reactive covid-19 pcr result.For patients 1 and 3, the vitros cov2tot results were discordant against vitros cov2igg results obtained from the same patient samples.There were no pcr results provided and no clinical information provided about these patients to aid in the determination of truth.However, the customer indicated the cov2igg reactive results were the expected results and it was expected that the vitros cov2tot would be concordant with the vitros cov2igg results as the cov2tot measures igg along with igm and iga.Based on historical quality control results, a vitros cov2tot lot 0285 reagent performance issue is not a likely contributor to the event as all vitros quality control fluid results prior to the event were within the correct ifu interpretation region.Additionally, ongoing tracking and trending of complaints has not identified any signals that would point to a potential systemic issue with vitros cov2tot lot 0285.Unexpected instrument performance is not a likely contributor to the events.However, it cannot be entirely ruled out as a contributing factor as precision testing to assess instrument performance was not performed by the customer when requested.It is unknown whether an interferent contributed to the event, as no further testing using a tube to block potential interference in the patient samples was conducted.The customer provided no information concerning the sample collection device used to collect the affected samples or sample processing of the affected samples.Therefore, pre-analytical sample handling cannot be ruled out as a potential contributor to this event.A definitive assignable cause of the event was not determined.(b)(4).
|