Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 50, Issue 6

Issues

Evaluation of Prevent ID and Quantum Blue rapid tests for fecal calprotectin

Jan Hessels / Geke Douw / Duygu D. Yildirim / Gerrit Meerman / Margot A. van Herwaarden / Frank A.J.T.M. van den Bergh
  • Laboratory for Clinical Chemistry, Hospital Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2012-01-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2011-0855

Abstract

Background: Tests for fecal calprotectin are usually either enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) or a time-resolved fluorimetric immunoassay (TRFIA). These time-consuming tests are performed only once every 1 or 2 weeks. Before the results of the tests are known most patients have already undergone colonoscopy. A rapid test, performed on outpatients, could minimize the number of necessary colonoscopies. To establish optimal cut-off values minimizing the necessity for colonoscopies, we compared two commercially available rapid tests with a quantitative TRFIA.

Methods: Fecal samples were collected from 85 patients with lower gastrointestinal complaints. Calprotectin was measured using quantitative TRFIA as well as using two rapid tests: Prevent ID CalDetect and Quantum Blue calprotectin. We used the TRFIA method as the golden standard with a cut-off value of 50 μg/g. The percentage correct classification, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value were calculated for both rapid tests at various cut-off levels.

Results: Correlation between both of the rapid tests with TRFIA was significant. Quantum Blue calprotectin (κ 0.77) correlated better than Prevent ID CalDetect (κ 0.46). Optimal cut-off levels for Prevent ID CalDetect and Quantum Blue calprotectin rapid tests were 15 μg/g and 40 μg/g with a reduction in the number of necessary colonoscopies of 39% and 62%, respectively.

Conclusions: The Quantum Blue calprotectin rapid test demonstrated better analytical performance than the Prevent ID CalDetect in reducing the number of colonoscopies. Furthermore, the former test has the advantage of using a point of care reader for quantitative measurement and for establishing an optimal cut-off level.

Keywords: calprotectin; fecal; rapid test; time-resolved fluorimetric immunoassay

About the article

Corresponding author: Dr. Jan Hessels, Clinical Chemist, Laboratory for Clinical Chemistry, Deventer Ziekenhuis, Nico Bolkesteinlaan 75, 7416 SE Deventer, The Netherlands Phone: +31 570 535031, Fax: +31 570 501428


Received: 2011-08-04

Accepted: 2011-12-14

Published Online: 2012-01-13

Published in Print: 2012-06-01


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Volume 50, Issue 6, Pages 1079–1082, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2011-0855.

Export Citation

©2012 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Runqing Li, Xiuying Zhao, Jingxiao Dong, Dong Zhu, Tengjiao Wang, Song Yang, Zhipeng Zhao, and Nan Xiao
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 2019
[2]
Tereza Lerchova, Ondrej Hradsky, Ivana Copova, Kristyna Potuznikova, Lucie Gonsorcikova, and Jiri Bronsky
Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 2019, Volume 69, Number 1, Page 75
[3]
Esther Garcia-Planella, Míriam Mañosa, María Chaparro, Belén Beltrán, Manuel Barreiro-de-Acosta, Jordi Gordillo, Elena Ricart, Fernando Bermejo, Valle García-Sánchez, Marta Piqueras, Jordina Llaó, Javier P. Gisbert, Eduard Cabré, and Eugeni Domènech
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 2017, Page 1
[4]
Matthijs Oyaert, An Boel, Julie Jacobs, Stefanie Van den Bremt, Maxime De Sloovere, Hilde Vanpoucke, and Lieve Van Hoovels
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 2017, Volume 55, Number 10
[5]
Caroline Bello, Arne Roseth, Jordi Guardiola, Catherine Reenaers, Alexandra Ruiz-Cerulla, Catherine Van Kemseke, Claudia Arajol, Christian Reinhard, Laurence Seidel, and Edouard Louis
Digestive and Liver Disease, 2017, Volume 49, Number 9, Page 991
[6]
Kristoffer Kofod Vinding, Henriette Elsberg, Tine Thorkilgaard, Erika Belard, Natalia Pedersen, Margarita Elkjaer, Dorte Marker, Katrine Carlsen, Johan Burisch, and Pia Munkholm
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 2016, Volume 22, Number 2, Page 336
[7]
Rocio Ferreiro-Iglesias, Manuel Barreiro-de Acosta, Manuel Otero Santiago, Aurelio Lorenzo Gonzalez, Carmen Alonso de la Peña, Alfonso J. Benitez Estevez, and Juan Enrique Dominguez-Muñoz
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 2016, Volume 50, Number 2, Page 147
[8]
Rocio Ferreiro-Iglesias, Manuel Barreiro-de Acosta, Aurelio Lorenzo-Gonzalez, and Juan Enrique Dominguez-Muñoz
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 2016, Volume 51, Number 4, Page 442
[9]
Quentin Delefortrie, Patricia Schatt, Alexandre Grimmelprez, Patrick Gohy, Didier Deltour, Geneviève Collard, and Patrick Vankerkhoven
Clinical Biochemistry, 2016, Volume 49, Number 3, Page 268
[10]
Taina Sipponen and Kaija-Leena Kolho
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 2015, Volume 50, Number 1, Page 74

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in