|
The customer reported a false negative reaction of cell #10 (donor #: (b)(6)) of biotestcell-i11 with the anti-m reagent of a competitor.According to the antigen worksheet cell #10 is m+n+.The customer stated that she performed the test manually in the tube technique and incubated for 30 minutes, but yielded a negative result.She also stated that cell #4 (donor (b)(6)), which is also m+n+ yielded a correctly positive result.The customer returned the complaint sample biotestcell-i11 for investigational testing, but returned biotestcell-i11 lot 8009011-00 (expiry date 2020-04-20) in the box and the worksheet of lot 8017011-00.Biotestcell-i11 lot 8009011-00 and lot 8017011-00 contained the same donor (donor #: (b)(6)) for cell #10.The customer did not return the anti-m reagent of the competitor.Although biotestcell-i11 lot 8009011 was expired, our quality control laboratory tested the reagent red blood cells (rrbc) provided by the customer with two different lots of seraclone anti-m.The test was performed manually in the tube technique with an incubation of 30 minutes at room temperature according to the instruction for use.All m antigen positive reagent red blood cells (cell #10 inclusive) yielded correctly positive results.Furthermore we tested our retention sample of the supposedly defective product with two different lots of seraclone anti-m.Again, all m antigen positive reagent red blood cells (cell #10 inclusive) yielded correctly positive results.We did not observe any false negative result.Testing by our quality control laboratory confirmed that the allegedly defective lot of biotestcell-i11 functions correctly.A review of the batch record documentation showed no irregularities which might have negatively affected the quality of the allegedly defective lot.We did not receive any further complaints related to this issue.
|