Staff members receive positive and negative Covid-19 results

The management of Alpha Pyrosec CC in Germiston is up in arms after four of its staff members received what they called false-positive Covid-19 results.

The RECORD spoke to one of the managers, Nick van Huyssteen, who resides in Alberton.

One positive and one negative

The company had 12 of their staff tested for Covid-19 at Target Laboratories in Booysens on May 15 after a doctor referred one of the employees to them for testing.

“Out of a total of 12 that was tested, four came back as positive. One of those positives was me,” said van Huyssteen.

According to him, he wanted a second opinion and tested again at Lancet in Alberton on May 17, where his results came back negative.  “You know that gut feeling you get when things just do not feel right. I went with my gut feeling as the results from Target Laboratory just did not make sense to me,” said van Huyssteen.

The other three staff members, Amon Rambau, Nature Kunene and Adrian Mokoena, also went to be re-tested at Lancet and Ampath and all three tested negative for Covid-19. He also said he compared the two tests and noticed his ID number was not on the report from Target Laboratory.

“I just feel that the stress our staff and myself was put through was uncalled for. A company like Target Laboratory, in my view, should not be allowed to practice anymore, they are just in it for the money.”

The management of Alpha Pyrosec CC reported Target Laboratory to The National Institute For Communicable Diseases of South Africa (NICD), who is investigating further. In the meantime, Alpha Pyrosec CC’s offices were fumigated and deep-cleaned by a professional company.

“Our staff had to self-isolate for 14 days as well.”

NICD findings and comment

Belinda dos Santos from Alpha Pyrosec CC also shared the findings from Nevashan Govender from NICD with the RECORD.

“He found that Target Laboratories is not on the South African National Accreditation System for Medical Laboratories,” said dos Santos.

According to the findings, the cases the company had queried about had not been electronically captured on the NICD’s line list as claimed by Target.

The findings read: “As they have subsequently tested negative, we have no record of them on our line list. The subsequent negative results, from another laboratory for those that tested positive originally, could be due to different testing protocols being applied at the different laboratories or a change of testing protocol at the initial laboratory, such as Target.”

Response from Prof Anne von Gottberg, associate professor of infectious disease in Johannesburg

“Two test results from specimens taken on different days can be different. What we find here is the first test is dated on May 15, although it is not clear whether this is the true specimen collection date,” said von Gottberg.

“To be noted is that the repeat test was only taken on May 17, at least two days later. “We know that patients shed virus in variable amounts over time, and our laboratory tests detect the virus and will reflect that variability.”

According to von Gottberg, the first specimen may have had a very low viral load (early or late in the infection), so even on the same day another test may come up negative.

“So after two days the individual could therefore no longer be carrying enough virus to be detected by the test.
“This can change again, as some individuals will test positive again if tested again. Other reasons why different specimens may have different results is the specimen quality. “You have to look at just how well the nurse took the specimen, how long the swab was left in the nasopharynx, the transport to the laboratory, how long it waited to be processed and where was it stored while waiting for testing. This can all affect the results.

“This individual should still be considered a Covid-19 case and should be requested to follow guidelines of isolation or quarantine for 14 days or as directed by his clinician or the public health specialists working with him.

“None of the efforts they took are wasted, as hopefully they did prevent ongoing transmission. “We are grateful to the company and all the staff for following the guidelines and contributing to our actions to control the disease,” von Gottberg concluded.

*The RECORD is still waiting for comment from Target Laboratory.

An employee from Target Laboratory answered the phone call from the RECORD on June 8 and asked the reporter to email all questions to her so that she can give it to management. An email was sent out on that same day (June 8) with a deadline, but to date, no comment has been received.