Back

Evaluation of the performance of a quantitative point-of-care CRP test

Ellis, J. E.; Macluskie, S.; Craig, D.; Lehane, L.; Mcinnes, G.; Harnett, J.; Cameron, G.; Moss, P.; Gray, A.

2022-05-22 respiratory medicine
10.1101/2022.05.20.22275259 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionC-reactive protein (CRP) is an established acute-phase marker for infection and inflammation, which can help guide clinical decision-making in primary and secondary care. Many European guidelines recommend point-of-care (POC) CRP testing to improve antimicrobial stewardship in primary care. This performance evaluation study assessed the equivalence of the quantitative POC LumiraDx CRP Test compared to a laboratory-based reference method. MethodsMethod comparison, matrix equivalency, and precision were evaluated. Plasma samples from secondary care patients presenting with symptoms of infection or inflammation were analyzed centrally using the LumiraDx CRP Test and the reference test (Siemens CRP Extended Range for Dimension(R) Clinical Chemistry System). The method comparison was conducted used Passing-Bablok regression analysis with prespecified criteria of r[≥]95 and a slope of 0.95-1.05. The REACT study (NCT05180110) evaluated the equivalence and precision of the testing modalities (fingerstick, venous blood, and plasma samples from the same secondary care patient) using Passing-Bablok regression analysis of the results of the POC LumiraDx CRP Test. ResultsIn analysis of 320 plasma samples from 110 patients, the POC LumiraDx CRP Test demonstrated close agreement with the reference method, meeting the prespecified performance criteria (r=0.99, slope of 1.05, N=110). Paired replicate precision of the testing modalities was high, with mean %CV of 6.4 (plasma), 6.6 (capillary direct), and 8.1 (venous blood). Passing-Bablok regression showed matrix equivalency for all replicate pairs of the testing modalities, with r values across all sample types of 0.97-0.98. ConclusionThe quantitative POC LumiraDx CRP Test showed very close agreement with the established laboratory-based test when using capillary blood, venous blood, or plasma. The use of capillary blood testing in particular is beneficial in both primary and secondary care, with this portable test system providing rapid quantitative results within 4 minutes, potentiating the ability to help guide clinical decision-making. Data from two study collections, the NOVEL study and the REACT study with a trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT05180110, were used in this performance evaluation. Key summary pointsO_LIC-reactive protein (CRP) measurements are clinical markers for infection and inflammation, commonly used in primary and secondary care C_LIO_LIPoint-of-care (POC) CRP testing can assist primary care clinicians in making an immediate decision as to whether to prescribe antibiotics while the patient is still at the clinic C_LIO_LIPOC CRP testing that provides quantitative results near to the patient can be useful in emergency care assessment of patients and in hospital monitoring of antibiotic therapy C_LIO_LIThe POC LumiraDx CRP Test has demonstrated quantitative results comparable to those obtained using a recognized laboratory system using plasma C_LIO_LIThe POC LumiraDx CRP Test has also demonstrated matrix equivalence of capillary blood (both direct application and transfer tube), venous blood, and plasma C_LI

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Medical Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.8%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 1%
12.6%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.5%
4
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 17%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
7
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
8
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
9
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.5%
10
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
11
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
12
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
13
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
14
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
15
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
16
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
17
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
18
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
19
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
Transfusion
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
21
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
22
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
23
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
24
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
25
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
26
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
27
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
28
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
29
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
30
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%