Sidhartha Jain1, Radha Rajasingham2, Farzad Noubary3, Erin Coonahan1, Ryan Schoeplein1, Rachel Baden2, Michael Curry4, Nezam Afdhal4, Shailendra Kumar1, Nira R Pollock5. 1. Diagnostics For All, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America. 2. Division of Infectious Diseases, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America. 3. The Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America. 4. Division of Hepatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America. 5. Division of Infectious Diseases, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; Department of Laboratory Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A paper-based, multiplexed, microfluidic assay has been developed to visually measure alanine aminotransferase (ALT) in a fingerstick sample, generating rapid, semi-quantitative results. Prior studies indicated a need for improved accuracy; the device was subsequently optimized using an FDA-approved automated platform (Abaxis Piccolo Xpress) as a comparator. Here, we evaluated the performance of the optimized paper test for measurement of ALT in fingerstick blood and serum, as compared to Abaxis and Roche/Hitachi platforms. To evaluate feasibility of remote results interpretation, we also compared reading cell phone camera images of completed tests to reading the device in real time. METHODS: 96 ambulatory patients with varied baseline ALT concentration underwent fingerstick testing using the paper device; cell phone images of completed devices were taken and texted to a blinded off-site reader. Venipuncture serum was obtained from 93/96 participants for routine clinical testing (Roche/Hitachi); subsequently, 88/93 serum samples were captured and applied to paper and Abaxis platforms. Paper test and reference standard results were compared by Bland-Altman analysis. FINDINGS: For serum, there was excellent agreement between paper test and Abaxis results, with negligible bias (+4.5 U/L). Abaxis results were systematically 8.6% lower than Roche/Hitachi results. ALT values in fingerstick samples tested on paper were systematically lower than values in paired serum tested on paper (bias -23.6 U/L) or Abaxis (bias -18.4 U/L); a correction factor was developed for the paper device to match fingerstick blood to serum. Visual reads of cell phone images closely matched reads made in real time (bias +5.5 U/L). CONCLUSIONS: The paper ALT test is highly accurate for serum testing, matching the reference method against which it was optimized better than the reference methods matched each other. A systematic difference exists between ALT values in fingerstick and paired serum samples, and can be addressed by application of a correction factor to fingerstick values. Remote reading of this device is feasible.
BACKGROUND: A paper-based, multiplexed, microfluidic assay has been developed to visually measure alanine aminotransferase (ALT) in a fingerstick sample, generating rapid, semi-quantitative results. Prior studies indicated a need for improved accuracy; the device was subsequently optimized using an FDA-approved automated platform (Abaxis Piccolo Xpress) as a comparator. Here, we evaluated the performance of the optimized paper test for measurement of ALT in fingerstick blood and serum, as compared to Abaxis and Roche/Hitachi platforms. To evaluate feasibility of remote results interpretation, we also compared reading cell phone camera images of completed tests to reading the device in real time. METHODS: 96 ambulatory patients with varied baseline ALT concentration underwent fingerstick testing using the paper device; cell phone images of completed devices were taken and texted to a blinded off-site reader. Venipuncture serum was obtained from 93/96 participants for routine clinical testing (Roche/Hitachi); subsequently, 88/93 serum samples were captured and applied to paper and Abaxis platforms. Paper test and reference standard results were compared by Bland-Altman analysis. FINDINGS: For serum, there was excellent agreement between paper test and Abaxis results, with negligible bias (+4.5 U/L). Abaxis results were systematically 8.6% lower than Roche/Hitachi results. ALT values in fingerstick samples tested on paper were systematically lower than values in paired serum tested on paper (bias -23.6 U/L) or Abaxis (bias -18.4 U/L); a correction factor was developed for the paper device to match fingerstick blood to serum. Visual reads of cell phone images closely matched reads made in real time (bias +5.5 U/L). CONCLUSIONS: The paper ALT test is highly accurate for serum testing, matching the reference method against which it was optimized better than the reference methods matched each other. A systematic difference exists between ALT values in fingerstick and paired serum samples, and can be addressed by application of a correction factor to fingerstick values. Remote reading of this device is feasible.
Authors: Andres W Martinez; Scott T Phillips; Emanuel Carrilho; Samuel W Thomas; Hayat Sindi; George M Whitesides Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2008-04-11 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Paul K Drain; Emily P Hyle; Farzad Noubary; Kenneth A Freedberg; Douglas Wilson; William R Bishai; William Rodriguez; Ingrid V Bassett Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Nira R Pollock; Jason P Rolland; Shailendra Kumar; Patrick D Beattie; Sidhartha Jain; Farzad Noubary; Vicki L Wong; Rebecca A Pohlmann; Una S Ryan; George M Whitesides Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Marco Schito; Trevor F Peter; Sean Cavanaugh; Amy S Piatek; Gloria J Young; Heather Alexander; William Coggin; Gonzalo J Domingo; Dennis Ellenberger; Eugen Ermantraut; Ilesh V Jani; Achilles Katamba; Kara M Palamountain; Shaffiq Essajee; David W Dowdy Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2012-03-29 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: J Morgan Freiman; Karen R Jacobson; Winnie R Muyindike; C Robert Horsburgh; Jerrold J Ellner; Judith A Hahn; Benjamin P Linas Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Jin Woo Lee; Shanna R Daly; Aileen Y Huang-Saad; Colleen M Seifert; Jacob Lutz Journal: Microfluid Nanofluidics Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 2.529