RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Analytical performance of 17 commercially available point-of-care tests for CRP to support patient management at lower levels of the health system
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.04.23.22273766
DO 10.1101/2022.04.23.22273766
A1 Calarco, Serafina
A1 Fernandez-Carballo, B. Leticia
A1 Keller, Thomas
A1 Weber, Stephan
A1 Jakobi, Meike
A1 Marsall, Patrick
A1 Schneiderhan-Marra, Nicole
A1 Dittrich, Sabine
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/27/2022.04.23.22273766.abstract
AB Accurate and precise point-of-care (POC) testing for C-reactive protein (CRP) can help support healthcare providers in the clinical management of patients. Here, we compared the analytical performance of 17 commercially available POC CRP tests to enable more decentralized use of the tool. The following CRP tests were evaluated. Eight quantitative tests: QuikRead go (Aidian), INCLIX (Sugentech), Spinit (Biosurfit), LS4000 (Lansionbio), GS 1200 (Gensure Biotech), Standard F200 (SD Biosensor), Epithod 616 (DxGen), IFP-3000 (Xincheng Biological); and nine semi-quantitative tests: Actim CRP (ACTIM), NADAL Dipstick (nal von minden), NADAL cassette (nal von minden), ALLTEST Dipstick (Hangzhou Alltest Biotech), ALLTEST Cassette cut-off 10-40-80 (Hangzhou Alltest Biotech), ALLTEST Cassette cut-off 10-30 (Hangzhou Alltest Biotech), Biotest (Hangzhou Biotest Biotech), BTNX Quad Line (BTNX), BTNX Tri Line (BTNX). Stored samples (n=660) had previously been tested for CRP using Cobas 8000 Modular analyzer (Roche Diagnostics International AG, Rotkreuz, Switzerland (reference standards). CRP values represented the clinically relevant range (10-100 mg/L) and were grouped into four categories (<10 mg/L, 10–40 mg/L or 10-30 mg/L, 40–80 mg/L or 30-80 mg/L, and > 80mg/L) for majority of the semi-quantitative tests. Among the eight quantitative POC tests evaluated, QuikRead go and Spinit exhibited better agreement with the reference method, showing slopes of 0.963 and 0.921, respectively. Semi-quantitative tests with the four categories showed a poor percentage agreement for the intermediate categories and higher percentage agreement for the lower and upper limit categories. Analytical performance varied considerably for the semi-quantitative tests, especially among the different categories of CRP values. Our findings suggest that quantitative tests might represent the best choice for a variety of use cases, as they can be used across a broad range of CRP categories.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported with funds from the Dutch and the Australian Government. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics committee of Comite National d'Ethique pour la Recherche (CNER) of Gabon gave ethical approval for this work Ethics committee of National Health Science Research Committee (NHSRC) of Malawi gave ethical approval for this work Ethics committee of the Observational and Intervention Research Ethics Committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) gave ethical approval for this work Ethics committee of the Research Ethics Committee of INI-FIOCRUZ and Comissao Nacional de Etica em Pesquisa (CONEP) gave ethical approval for this work https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/10/e003141.longI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files