Dataset Information

Comparative repeatability of pancreatic lipase assays in the commercial and in-house laboratory environments.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sensitivity and specificity for commercial and in-house pancreatic lipase immunoreactivity (cPLI) assays have been reported, but repeatability under routine clinical conditions is unknown.

Objectives

To determine: Coefficient of variation (CV) between replicates of a commercial assay (Spec cPL) and 2 in-house assays (VetScan cPL, Vcheck cPL) under routine conditions. Effects of sample condition or personnel on results. Potential directional bias between assays.

Animals

Serum from 12 canine clinical patients.

Methods

Prospective study. Serum Spec cPL, VetScan cPL, and Vcheck cPL (6 aliquots each) were measured, and CVs were calculated, effects of sample condition and personnel were assessed using a linear mixed model, and direction of bias was assessed using least square mean cPLI concentration.

Results

Mean %CVs for Spec cPL, VetScan cPL, and Vcheck cPL were 5.5, 17.0, and 23.7%. Three of 6 VetScan cPL samples and 5/9 Vcheck cPL samples had an unacceptably high %CV (>20%). Transportation (Spec cPL) and sample condition or personnel (VetScan cPL, Vcheck cPL) did not affect repeatability. Least square mean cPL was higher for Spec cPL (807.9??g/L) than for VetScan cPL (558.5??g/L) or Vcheck cPL (399.8??g/L).

Conclusions and clinical importance

For clinical use, the commercial Spec cPL has the highest repeatability, and Vcheck cPL has significantly lower repeatability. Both in-house assays evaluated may provide discrepant categorical results ("pancreatitis" versus "equivocal" versus "not pancreatitis") for the same sample. In-house pancreatic lipase concentrations may be lower than those determined by the Spec cPL assay.

SUBMITTER: Cridge H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7255685 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative repeatability of pancreatic lipase assays in the commercial and in-house laboratory environments.

Cridge Harry H Mackin Andrew J AJ Lidbury Jonathan A JA Suchodolski Jan S JS Steiner Jörg M JM

Journal of veterinary internal medicine 20200406 3

<h4>Background</h4>Sensitivity and specificity for commercial and in-house pancreatic lipase immunoreactivity (cPLI) assays have been reported, but repeatability under routine clinical conditions is unknown.<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine: Coefficient of variation (CV) between replicates of a commercial assay (Spec cPL) and 2 in-house assays (VetScan cPL, Vcheck cPL) under routine conditions. Effects of sample condition or personnel on results. Potential directional bias between assays.<h4>Anima ...[more]

PMID: 32249988

Similar Datasets

Project description:The coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viruses. The pandemic has emerged as a global public health crisis, and the threat of fast-spreading of the latest variants of the coronavirus (such as omicron, delta) is rampant. Therefore, a fast and reliable diagnostic assay is needed to make the clinical decision for further treatment. The study aims to develop a Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC)-modified qualitative real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR) assay and parallel assessment of commercially available RT-qPCR assay (Altona, Seegene, BD, and GBC) to detect SARS-CoV-2. Two hundred nine samples were chosen randomly out of around two hundred thousand samples. The panel consisted of SARS-CoV-2-positive (n = 156) and SARS-CoV-2-negative (n = 52) nasopharyngeal swab specimens for a primary clinical evaluation. Furthermore, 29 positive samples were sequenced using Oxford Nanopore Minion technology. Two hundred nine patient sample data of the cycle threshold (Ct) readings for target genes of five assays are 100% sensitive for Ct values. Mean Ct values for N1, N2, RdRp, S, and E of the positive controls in CDC assay, RealStar®, Allplex, GBC, and SD Biosensor were 17.5 ± 0.49, 16.9 ± 0.51, 20 ± 0.49, 21.7 ± 0.38, and 23.1 ± 0.43, respectively. F test value shows ≥ 1, which was statistically significant. All assays showed an efficiency of < 120% and R squares were < 0.99, which is well above the required threshold value. Thus, when taking the CDC-modified assay as a gold standard, the other four assays demonstrated a p value of 0.0000, concordance at 100%, and a Kappa at 1.000. A maximum-likelihood (ML) tree was constructed and compared based on full-length SARS-CoV-2 with Wuhan isolate. These isolates are closely related to the B.1.617 lineage and reference sequences. Therefore, we conclude that all RT-PCR kits assessed in this study shall be used for routine diagnostics of COVID-19 in patients.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00580-022-03356-y.

Project description:BackgroundMalaria is an infectious disease considered as one of the biggest causes of mortality in endemic areas. This life-threatening disease needs to be quickly diagnosed and treated. The standard diagnostic tools recommended by the World Health Organization are thick blood smears microscopy and immuno-chromatographic rapid diagnostic tests. However, these methods lack sensitivity especially in cases of low parasitaemia and non-falciparum infections. Therefore, the need for more accurate and reliable diagnostic tools, such as real-time polymerase chain reaction based methods which have proven greater sensitivity particularly in the screening of malaria, is prominent. This study was conducted at the French National Malaria Reference Centre to assess sensitivity and specificity of two commercial malaria qPCR kits and two in-house developed qPCRs compared to LAMP.Methods183 blood samples received for expertise at the FNMRC were included in this study and were subjected to four different qPCR methods: the Biosynex Ampliquick® Malaria test, the BioEvolution Plasmodium Typage test, the in-house HRM and the in-house TaqMan qPCRs. The specificity and sensitivity of each method and their confidence intervals were determined with the LAMP-based assay Alethia® Malaria as the reference for malaria diagnosis. The accuracy of species diagnosis of the Ampliquick® Malaria test and the two in-house qPCRs was also evaluated using the BioEvolution Plasmodium Typage test as the reference method for species identification.ResultsThe main results showed that when compared to LAMP, a test with excellent diagnostic performances, the two in-house developed qPCRs were the most sensitive (sensitivity at 100% for the in-house TaqMan qPCR and 98.1% for the in-house HRM qPCR), followed by the two commercial kits: the Biosynex Ampliquick® Malaria test (sensitivity at 97.2%) and the BioEvolution Plasmodium Typage (sensitivity at 95.4%). Additionally, with the in-house qPCRs we were able to confirm a Plasmodium falciparum infection in microscopically negative samples that were not detected by commercial qPCR kits. This demonstrates that the var genes of P. falciparum used in these in-house qPCRs are more reliable targets than the 18S sRNA commonly used in most of the developed qPCR methods for malaria diagnosis.ConclusionOverall, these results accentuate the role molecular methods could play in the screening of malaria. This may represent a helpful tool for other laboratories looking to implement molecular diagnosis methods in their routine analysis, which could be essential for the detection and treatment of malaria carriers and even for the eradication of this disease.

Dataset Information

Comparative repeatability of pancreatic lipase assays in the commercial and in-house laboratory environments.

Background

Objectives

Animals

Methods

Results

Conclusions and clinical importance

Publications

Comparative repeatability of pancreatic lipase assays in the commercial and in-house laboratory environments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets