Acevedo Delia, Salvador Maria Pilar, Girbes Javier, Estan Nuria
Clinical Analysis Service, Dr. Peset University Hospital, Avenida Gaspar Aguilar, 90, 46440 Valencia, Spain.
J Clin Med Res. 2018 May;10(5):396-404. doi: 10.14740/jocmr3275e. Epub 2018 Mar 16.
The aims of the study were: 1) to compare the fecal calprotectin (fCal) assay results with Calprolab™ ELISA (HRP) (Calpro AS) versus our routine method, Elia™ fluoroenzymoimmunoassay (Thermo Fisher), and 2) to determine whether the fCal assay results do not vary following storage of the extract at room temperature for 4 days with the Calpro AS buffer, this being the estimated shipment time from the home of the patient, and an aspect little studied to date.
The fCal was determined in 198 patients divided into three groups: inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), organic intestinal disease, and functional intestinal disorders. Fecal extraction was carried out using the Roche Diagnostics kit with the corresponding specific buffers.
The fCal assay with the Thermo Fisher method was found to be more sensitive but less specific than with the Calpro AS technique. The positive predictive value was low (just over 50%), though the negative predictive value was high (over 90%) with both methods. The likelihood ratios revealed small but occasionally important pre- versus post-test differences. When we compared the two methods, the Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) was 0.819 (95% CI: 0.768 - 0.860) (P < 0.0001), reflecting a positive correlation. Similarly, when stratifying the fCal results into < 50 µg/g, 50 - 100 µg/g and > 100 µg/g, the resulting Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.7766 (95% CI: 0.7025 - 0.8507), reflecting a substantial agreement between both methods. The stability of fCal was high in fecal extracts with the Calpro AS extraction buffer at room temperature for 4 days, which yielded a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.951 (95% CI: 0.933 - 0.965), when the results were compared to those of the recent extracts (P < 0.0001).
A positive correlation was observed between the two methods. In view of the high negative predictive value obtained with fCal, the presence of organic disease is highly unlikely in the presence of a normal concentration of this marker. We also confirmed the excellent stability of fCal in fecal extracts with the Calpro AS extraction buffer stored at room temperature. Thus, and for the sake of convenience and hygiene, it would be ideal for the patient to perform the extraction at home.
本研究的目的是:1)比较粪便钙卫蛋白(fCal)检测结果,采用Calprolab™ ELISA(HRP)(Calpro AS)法与我们的常规方法Elia™ 荧光酶免疫分析法(赛默飞世尔科技);2)确定在室温下用Calpro AS缓冲液将提取物保存4天(这是患者家中估计的运输时间,也是迄今为止研究较少的一个方面)后,fCal检测结果是否会发生变化。
对198例患者进行fCal检测,这些患者分为三组:炎症性肠病(IBD)、器质性肠道疾病和功能性肠道疾病。使用罗氏诊断试剂盒及相应的特定缓冲液进行粪便提取。
发现赛默飞世尔科技方法的fCal检测比Calpro AS技术更敏感,但特异性更低。两种方法的阳性预测值都较低(略高于50%),不过阴性预测值都较高(超过90%)。似然比显示,检测前和检测后的差异虽小,但偶尔也很重要。当我们比较这两种方法时,Spearman相关系数(ρ)为0.819(95% CI:0.768 - 0.860)(P < 0.0001),反映出正相关。同样,当将fCal结果分为< 50 µg/g、50 - 100 µg/g和> 100 µg/g时,得到的Cohen's kappa系数为0.7766(95% CI:0.7025 - 0.8507),反映出两种方法之间有高度一致性。在室温下用Calpro AS提取缓冲液保存4天的粪便提取物中,fCal的稳定性很高,将结果与近期提取物的结果进行比较时,Spearman相关系数为0.951(95% CI:0.933 - 0.965)(P < 0.0001)。
两种方法之间观察到正相关。鉴于fCal获得的高阴性预测值,在该标志物浓度正常的情况下,极不可能存在器质性疾病。我们还证实了在室温下用Calpro AS提取缓冲液保存的粪便提取物中fCal具有出色的稳定性。因此,为了方便和卫生起见,患者在家中进行提取将是理想的选择。