Cargando…

Head-to-head comparison of three stool calprotectin tests for home use

OBJECTIVE: Treatment decisions in inflammatory bowel diseases are increasingly based on longitudinal tracking of calprotectin results. Many hospital laboratories measure calprotectin levels in sent-in stool samples with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Several manufacturers introduced a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haisma, Sjoukje-Marije, Galaurchi, Anne, Almahwzi, Shatha, Adekanmi Balogun, Joy A., Muller Kobold, Anneke C., van Rheenen, Patrick F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6472756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30998692
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214751
_version_ 1783412303906996224
author Haisma, Sjoukje-Marije
Galaurchi, Anne
Almahwzi, Shatha
Adekanmi Balogun, Joy A.
Muller Kobold, Anneke C.
van Rheenen, Patrick F.
author_facet Haisma, Sjoukje-Marije
Galaurchi, Anne
Almahwzi, Shatha
Adekanmi Balogun, Joy A.
Muller Kobold, Anneke C.
van Rheenen, Patrick F.
author_sort Haisma, Sjoukje-Marije
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Treatment decisions in inflammatory bowel diseases are increasingly based on longitudinal tracking of calprotectin results. Many hospital laboratories measure calprotectin levels in sent-in stool samples with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Several manufacturers introduced a lateral flow–based test with software application that turns a smartphone camera into a reader for quantitative measurements. We compared three home tests (IBDoc, QuantonCal and CalproSmart) and companion ELISA tests (fCAL, IDK-Calprotectin and Calprotectin-ALP) to see if measurement pairs agreed sufficiently. DESIGN: A method comparison study was conducted with stool samples from patients with active or quiescent inflammatory bowel disease. Medical students without any specific laboratory training carried out the home tests with two iOS (iPhone 6 and 7) and two Android devices (Samsung Galaxy S6 and Motorola Moto G5 Plus). Two experienced laboratory technicians measured the calprotectin concentration with the ELISA method. Primary outcome was test agreement (defined as percentage of paired measurements within predefined limits of difference). Secondary outcome included reading error rate (RER) per smartphone type. RESULTS: We performed 1440 smartphone readings and 120 ELISA tests. In the low calprotectin range (≤500 μg/g) IBDoc, QuantOnCal and CalproSmart showed 87%, 82% and 76% agreement with their companion ELISAs. In the high range (>500 μg/g) the agreement was 37%, 19% and 37%, respectively. CalproSmart and QuantOnCal had significantly higher RERs than IBDoc (respectively 5.8% and 4.8%, versus 1.9%). Forty-three percent of reading errors was on the Motorola device, in particular with the QuantOnCal application. CONCLUSIONS: All three calprotectin home tests and companion ELISAs agreed sufficiently when concentrations are ≤500 μg/g. To minimize wrongful interpretation of calprotectin changes over time it is essential to always use the home test and companion ELISA of one and the same manufacturer. Manufacturers should explicitly evaluate and report the suitability of commonly used smartphones for quantitative calprotectin readings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6472756
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64727562019-05-03 Head-to-head comparison of three stool calprotectin tests for home use Haisma, Sjoukje-Marije Galaurchi, Anne Almahwzi, Shatha Adekanmi Balogun, Joy A. Muller Kobold, Anneke C. van Rheenen, Patrick F. PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: Treatment decisions in inflammatory bowel diseases are increasingly based on longitudinal tracking of calprotectin results. Many hospital laboratories measure calprotectin levels in sent-in stool samples with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Several manufacturers introduced a lateral flow–based test with software application that turns a smartphone camera into a reader for quantitative measurements. We compared three home tests (IBDoc, QuantonCal and CalproSmart) and companion ELISA tests (fCAL, IDK-Calprotectin and Calprotectin-ALP) to see if measurement pairs agreed sufficiently. DESIGN: A method comparison study was conducted with stool samples from patients with active or quiescent inflammatory bowel disease. Medical students without any specific laboratory training carried out the home tests with two iOS (iPhone 6 and 7) and two Android devices (Samsung Galaxy S6 and Motorola Moto G5 Plus). Two experienced laboratory technicians measured the calprotectin concentration with the ELISA method. Primary outcome was test agreement (defined as percentage of paired measurements within predefined limits of difference). Secondary outcome included reading error rate (RER) per smartphone type. RESULTS: We performed 1440 smartphone readings and 120 ELISA tests. In the low calprotectin range (≤500 μg/g) IBDoc, QuantOnCal and CalproSmart showed 87%, 82% and 76% agreement with their companion ELISAs. In the high range (>500 μg/g) the agreement was 37%, 19% and 37%, respectively. CalproSmart and QuantOnCal had significantly higher RERs than IBDoc (respectively 5.8% and 4.8%, versus 1.9%). Forty-three percent of reading errors was on the Motorola device, in particular with the QuantOnCal application. CONCLUSIONS: All three calprotectin home tests and companion ELISAs agreed sufficiently when concentrations are ≤500 μg/g. To minimize wrongful interpretation of calprotectin changes over time it is essential to always use the home test and companion ELISA of one and the same manufacturer. Manufacturers should explicitly evaluate and report the suitability of commonly used smartphones for quantitative calprotectin readings. Public Library of Science 2019-04-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6472756/ /pubmed/30998692 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214751 Text en © 2019 Haisma et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Haisma, Sjoukje-Marije
Galaurchi, Anne
Almahwzi, Shatha
Adekanmi Balogun, Joy A.
Muller Kobold, Anneke C.
van Rheenen, Patrick F.
Head-to-head comparison of three stool calprotectin tests for home use
title Head-to-head comparison of three stool calprotectin tests for home use
title_full Head-to-head comparison of three stool calprotectin tests for home use
title_fullStr Head-to-head comparison of three stool calprotectin tests for home use
title_full_unstemmed Head-to-head comparison of three stool calprotectin tests for home use
title_short Head-to-head comparison of three stool calprotectin tests for home use
title_sort head-to-head comparison of three stool calprotectin tests for home use
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6472756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30998692
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214751
work_keys_str_mv AT haismasjoukjemarije headtoheadcomparisonofthreestoolcalprotectintestsforhomeuse
AT galaurchianne headtoheadcomparisonofthreestoolcalprotectintestsforhomeuse
AT almahwzishatha headtoheadcomparisonofthreestoolcalprotectintestsforhomeuse
AT adekanmibalogunjoya headtoheadcomparisonofthreestoolcalprotectintestsforhomeuse
AT mullerkoboldannekec headtoheadcomparisonofthreestoolcalprotectintestsforhomeuse
AT vanrheenenpatrickf headtoheadcomparisonofthreestoolcalprotectintestsforhomeuse