Nannette Brouwer1, Johannes van Pelt2. 1. Department of Clinical Chemistry, Hematology and Immunology, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Postbus 501, 1800 AM Alkmaar, The Netherlands. Electronic address: n.brouwer@llz.nl. 2. Department of Clinical Chemistry, Hematology and Immunology, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Postbus 501, 1800 AM Alkmaar, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.van.pelt@mca.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are several situations compelling to measure CRP with a point of care (POC) method. Assay performance of various available POC CRP methods were evaluated as analytical quality is important and should be known before clinical use. METHODS: We compared 2 semi-quantitative strips; Actim and Cleartest and 6 quantitative CRP tests; Afinion, QuikRead go, Smart, iChroma, Microsemi and AQT90 Flex to the Synchron CRP method, using the CLSI EP9 protocol. The coefficient of variance (CV) was determined. Various aspects of pre-analytical and analytical steps were evaluated. RESULTS: CRP strips showed 50-60% concordance with the Synchron CRP. The linear regression lines (95% CI) of the quantitative POC CRP methods compared to the Synchron CRP method were: y=[0.96-1.04]x+[-4.7 to -2.04] (Smart); y=[1.00-1.06]x+[1.05-4.99] (AQT90 Flex), y=[0.84-0.91]x+[-1.13 to 3.95] (Afinion); y=[0.83-0.87]x+[0.25-1.5] (QuikRead go); y=[0.76-0.82]x+[-0.18 to 1.35] (iChroma) and y=[1.14-1.18]x+[-3.17 to -1.83] (Microsemi). CONCLUSIONS: At best, the semi-quantitative CRP strips could be used to discriminate between normal and increased levels of CRP. Of the quantitative methods, when combining analytical with practical evaluation, the Smart and Afinion would be the preferred analyzers for POCT.
BACKGROUND: There are several situations compelling to measure CRP with a point of care (POC) method. Assay performance of various available POC CRP methods were evaluated as analytical quality is important and should be known before clinical use. METHODS: We compared 2 semi-quantitative strips; Actim and Cleartest and 6 quantitative CRP tests; Afinion, QuikRead go, Smart, iChroma, Microsemi and AQT90 Flex to the Synchron CRP method, using the CLSI EP9 protocol. The coefficient of variance (CV) was determined. Various aspects of pre-analytical and analytical steps were evaluated. RESULTS: CRP strips showed 50-60% concordance with the Synchron CRP. The linear regression lines (95% CI) of the quantitative POC CRP methods compared to the Synchron CRP method were: y=[0.96-1.04]x+[-4.7 to -2.04] (Smart); y=[1.00-1.06]x+[1.05-4.99] (AQT90 Flex), y=[0.84-0.91]x+[-1.13 to 3.95] (Afinion); y=[0.83-0.87]x+[0.25-1.5] (QuikRead go); y=[0.76-0.82]x+[-0.18 to 1.35] (iChroma) and y=[1.14-1.18]x+[-3.17 to -1.83] (Microsemi). CONCLUSIONS: At best, the semi-quantitative CRP strips could be used to discriminate between normal and increased levels of CRP. Of the quantitative methods, when combining analytical with practical evaluation, the Smart and Afinion would be the preferred analyzers for POCT.
Authors: Malaika Schwartz; Victoria Hardy; Gina A Keppel; William Alto; Jaime Hornecker; Beth Robitaille; Jon Neher; John Holmes; M Ashworth Dirac; Allison M Cole; Matthew Thompson Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2017 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Leanne Chalmers; Petra Czarniak; Jeffery Hughes; Rebecca Iacob; Ya Ping Lee; Kiran Parsons; Richard Parsons; Bruce Sunderland; Tin Fei Sim Journal: Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm Date: 2022-06-02
Authors: Veerle Matheeussen; Viviane Van Hoof; Katherine Loens; Christine Lammens; Anouk Vanderstraeten; Samuel Coenen; Chris C Butler; Paul Little; Theo J M Verheij; Herman Goossens; Margareta Ieven Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Yoel Lubell; Thomas Althaus; Stuart D Blacksell; Daniel H Paris; Mayfong Mayxay; Wirichada Pan-Ngum; Lisa J White; Nicholas P J Day; Paul N Newton Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yoel Lubell; Stuart D Blacksell; Susanna Dunachie; Ampai Tanganuchitcharnchai; Thomas Althaus; Wanitda Watthanaworawit; Daniel H Paris; Mayfong Mayxay; Thomas J Peto; Arjen M Dondorp; Nicholas J White; Nicholas P J Day; François Nosten; Paul N Newton; Paul Turner Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: David C Muller; Tricia L Larose; Allison Hodge; Florence Guida; Arnulf Langhammer; Kjell Grankvist; Klaus Meyer; Qiuyin Cai; Alan A Arslan; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Demetrius Albanes; Graham G Giles; Howard D Sesso; I-Min Lee; J Michael Gaziano; Jian-Min Yuan; Judith Hoffman Bolton; Julie E Buring; Kala Visvanathan; Loic Le Marchand; Mark P Purdue; Neil E Caporaso; Øivind Midttun; Per M Ueland; Ross L Prentice; Stephanie J Weinstein; Victoria L Stevens; Wei Zheng; William J Blot; Xiao-Ou Shu; Xuehong Zhang; Yong-Bing Xiang; Woon-Puay Koh; Kristian Hveem; Cynthia A Thomson; Mary Pettinger; Gunnar Engström; Hans Brunnström; Roger L Milne; Meir J Stampfer; Jiali Han; Mikael Johansson; Paul Brennan; Gianluca Severi; Mattias Johansson Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-01-03