OBJECTIVE: Commercial assays for the measurement of canine and feline pancreatic lipase immunoreactivity (Spec cPL® and Spec fPL®) have been available for a few years. The aim of this study was to compare new commercial assays that have not previously been validated in the literature to the established assays. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Leftover serum samples from diagnostic submissions to the GI-lab of the Texas A&M University were collected based on certain parameters (e.g., good quality sample, hemolytic, lipemic, or icteric sample) and were assigned random sample ID numbers. The samples were evaluated by Spec cPL® or Spec fPL® and sent on dry ice to the Kleintierklinik am Hochberg (Germany). From here one aliquot of each sample was blindly submitted to the diagnostic laboratory Laboklin (Germany) for measurement of cPL and fPL by their newly released assay and also to the GI-Lab (Texas) for repeated analysis to exclude any effect of shipping. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between serum cPL or fPL concentrations before or after shipping at the GI-Lab (Texas) (Wilcoxon paired sample signed rank tests p = 0.581 and 0.712, respectively). Significant differences were found between serum cPL or fPL concentrations of the newly released assays and the established assays (p < 0.0004 and p = 0.025, respectively). The newly released and the established assays showed some association (Spearman r: 0.775 and 0.739, respectively), however, there was a strong bias between the new assays and the established assays. The strength of agreement between the new and established canine and feline assays was poor (concordance coefficient 0.539 and 0.465, respectively). Also, the clinical interpretation for serum cPL and fPL results did not agree for many of the samples. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In conclusion, the newly released assays for the measurement of cPL and fPL show significant bias and poor concordance and provide different clinical interpretations when compared with validated assays. Thus, further research is needed before these newly released assays can be recommended for clinical use.
OBJECTIVE: Commercial assays for the measurement of canine and feline pancreatic lipase immunoreactivity (Spec cPL® and Spec fPL®) have been available for a few years. The aim of this study was to compare new commercial assays that have not previously been validated in the literature to the established assays. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Leftover serum samples from diagnostic submissions to the GI-lab of the Texas A&M University were collected based on certain parameters (e.g., good quality sample, hemolytic, lipemic, or icteric sample) and were assigned random sample ID numbers. The samples were evaluated by Spec cPL® or Spec fPL® and sent on dry ice to the Kleintierklinik am Hochberg (Germany). From here one aliquot of each sample was blindly submitted to the diagnostic laboratory Laboklin (Germany) for measurement of cPL and fPL by their newly released assay and also to the GI-Lab (Texas) for repeated analysis to exclude any effect of shipping. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between serum cPL or fPL concentrations before or after shipping at the GI-Lab (Texas) (Wilcoxon paired sample signed rank tests p = 0.581 and 0.712, respectively). Significant differences were found between serum cPL or fPL concentrations of the newly released assays and the established assays (p < 0.0004 and p = 0.025, respectively). The newly released and the established assays showed some association (Spearman r: 0.775 and 0.739, respectively), however, there was a strong bias between the new assays and the established assays. The strength of agreement between the new and established canine and feline assays was poor (concordance coefficient 0.539 and 0.465, respectively). Also, the clinical interpretation for serum cPL and fPL results did not agree for many of the samples. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In conclusion, the newly released assays for the measurement of cPL and fPL show significant bias and poor concordance and provide different clinical interpretations when compared with validated assays. Thus, further research is needed before these newly released assays can be recommended for clinical use.
Authors: Marnin A Forman; Joerg M Steiner; P Jane Armstrong; Melinda S Camus; Lorrie Gaschen; Steve L Hill; Caroline S Mansfield; Katja Steiger Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 3.175
Authors: Joerg M Steiner; Phillip Guadiano; Robynne R Gomez; Jan S Suchodolski; Jonathan A Lidbury Journal: Vet Clin Pathol Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 1.180
Authors: Marnin A Forman; Joerg M Steiner; P Jane Armstrong; Melinda S Camus; Lorrie Gaschen; Steve L Hill; Caroline S Mansfield; Katja Steiger Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 3.333