The performance and practicability of 2 blood glucose meters (Glucocard Memory 2 and Accutrend sensor) were evaluated. Both glucose meters produced acceptably precise results in the hyper- and normoglycaemic concentration ranges. In the hypoglycaemic concentration range, the imprecision of Accutrend sensor was much higher than recommended by the American Diabetes Association. Within-run coefficients of variation for Glucocard Memory 2 were 6.3%, 3.9% and 2.4% at glucose concentrations of 1.7 mmol/l, 5.8 mmol/l and 11.7 mmol/l, respectively: for Accutrend sensor these were 15.2%, 5.0% and 1.2% at respective concentrations of 0.9 mmol/l, 4.2 mmol/l and 19.6 mmol/l. Between-day coefficients of variation for Glucocard Memory 2 were 4.8% and 3.5% at glucose concentrations of 3.9 mmol/l and 17.2 mmol/l, respectively and for Accutrend sensor they were 3.8% and 2.9% at glucose concentrations of 3.8 mmol/l and 18.7 mmol/l, respectively. Results were linear over a range of 1.6 mmol/l -29.7 mmol/l for Glucocard Memory 2 and 1.6 mmol/l -33.3 mmol/l for Accutrend sensor. Results of both blood glucose meters correlated closely with the hexokinase/glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase laboratory method. Ninety-eight percent of both Glucocard Memory 2 and Accutrend sensor results were within 20% of the comparison method values. Ninety-three percent of the Glucocard Memory 2 and 96% of the Accutrend sensor results were within 15% of the comparison method results. An inverse relation between the glucose readings and haematocrit values was observed for both blood glucose meters in the hyperglycaemic range and this effect was more pronounced for Accutrend sensor. In the normo- and hypoglycaemic ranges the effect was insignificant and absent, respectively. Minimum sample volume for Glucocard Memory 2 was 3 microliters and for Accutrend sensor it was 9 microliters. Lower sample volumes gave erroneous results. Presenting more than the required volume had no effect on results.

From early 2020, a high demand for SARS-CoV-2 tests was driven by several testing indications, including asymptomatic cases, resulting in the massive roll-out of PCR assays to combat the pandemic. Considering the dynamic of viral shedding during the course of infection, the demand to report cycle threshold (Ct) values rapidly emerged. As Ct values can be affected by a number of factors, we considered that harmonization of semi-quantitative PCR results across laboratories would avoid potential divergent interpretations, particularly in the absence of clinical or serological information. A proposal to harmonize reporting of test results was drafted by the National Reference Centre (NRC) UZ/KU Leuven, distinguishing four categories of positivity based on RNA copies/mL. Pre-quantified control material was shipped to 124 laboratories with instructions to setup a standard curve to define thresholds per assay. For each assay, the mean Ct value and corresponding standard deviation was calculated per target gene, for the three concentrations (107, 105 and 103 copies/mL) that determine the classification. The results of 17 assays are summarized. This harmonization effort allowed to ensure that all Belgian laboratories would report positive PCR results in the same semi-quantitative manner to clinicians and to the national database which feeds contact tracing interventions.

No abstract