How to verify and validate a clinical microbiology test before it can be used in routine diagnostics:a practical guide

Background: Before a new test can be routinely used in your laboratory, its reliability must be established in the laboratory where it will be used. International standards demand validation and verification procedures for new tests. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15189 was recently updated, and the European Commission's In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) came into effect. These events will likely increase the need for validation and verification procedures. Objectives: This paper aims to provide practical guidance in validating or verifying microbiology tests, including antimicrobial susceptibility tests in a clinical microbiology laboratory. Sources: It summarizes and interprets certain parts of standards such as ISO 15189:2022, and regulations, such as IVDR 2017/746 regarding validation or verification of a new test in a routine clinical microbiology laboratory. Content: The reasons for choosing a new test and the outline of the validation and verification plan are discussed. Furthermore, the following topics are touched upon: the choice of reference standard, number of samples, testing procedures, how to solve the discrepancies between results from new test and reference standard, and acceptance criteria. Arguments for selecting certain parameters (such as reference standard and sample size) and examples are given. Implications: With the expected increase in validation and verification procedures because of the implementation of IVDR, this paper may aid in planning and executing these procedures.</p

Susceptibility of ESBL Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae to fosfomycin in the Netherlands and comparison of several testing methods including Etest, MIC test strip, Vitek2, Phoenix and disc diffusion

Objectives: Fosfomycin susceptibility testing is complicated and prone to error. Before using fosfomycin widely in patients with serious infections, acquisition of WT distribution data and reliable susceptibility testing methods are crucial. In this study, the performance of five methods for fosfomycin testing in the routine laboratory against the reference method was evaluated. Methods: Ten laboratories collected up to 100 ESBL-producing isolates each (80 Escherichia coli and 20 Klebsiella pneumoniae). Isolates were tested using Etest, MIC test strip (MTS), Vitek2, Phoenix and disc diffusion. Agar dilution was performed as the reference method in a central laboratory. Epidemiological cut-off values (ECOFFs) were determined for each species and susceptibility and error rates were calculated. Results: In total, 775 E. coli and 201 K. pneumoniae isolates were tested by agar dilution. The ECOFF was 2 mg/L for E. coli and 64 mg/L for K. pneumoniae. Susceptibility rates based on the EUCAST breakpoint of Conclusions: Overall, it was concluded that none of the test methods is suitable as an alternative to agar dilution in the routine laboratory