|
There was an allegation of false negative staphylococcus aureus results for three patient samples using the eplex blood culture identification panel - gram positive (bcid-gp) panel on the eplex base analyzer.Sample 1: on (b)(6) 2025, result was staphylococcus.On (b)(6) 2025, the repeat result was staphylococcus and staphylococcus aureus.The culture result was staphylococcus aureus (mssa).Sample 2: on (b)(6) 2025, result was staphylococcus, enterococcus, and enterococcus faecalis.On (b)(6) 2025, the repeat result was staphylococcus, enterococcus, and enterococcus faecalis.The culture result was staphylococcus aureus (mssa) and enterococcus faecalis.Sample 3: on (b)(6) 2025, result was staphylococcus and pan gram-negative.The culture result was staphylococcus aureus (mssa), e.Coli, and k.Pneumoniae.
|
|
The customer returned consumables from the implicated lot along with the aliquots from samples 1 and 2 for internal testing.Each blood aliquot was run in duplicate, on the returned material and the customer allegations were not reproducible.An internal review of qc release data for the affected lot confirms the consumable lot met the established qc release specifications.The investigation determined the issue was consistent with a lower than intended target concentration within the sample volume analyzed by the assay.It is possible that a low target concentration was withdrawn and loaded for analysis.This can create a limit of detection challenge if the concentration is at or near the analytical sensitivity of the assay.With samples 1 and 2, the polymicrobial nature of the samples could contribute the unexpected results.In mixed cultures, the cobas eplex bcid-gp panel may not identify all organisms in the specimen, depending upon the concentration of each target present.Based on the available data and analysis, no product quality issue was suspected.No run malfunction was observed with the eplex instrument.
|