Next Article in Journal
Endometrioid Carcinomas of the Ovaries and Endometrium Involving Endocervical Polyps: Comprehensive Clinicopathological Analyses
Previous Article in Journal
Diagnosis and Management of Pelvic Venous Disorders in Females
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/diagnostics12102338
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

New Faecal Calprotectin Assay by IDS: Validation and Comparison to DiaSorin Method

by
Vincent Castiglione
1,*,
Maëlle Berodes
1,
Pierre Lukas
1,
Edouard Louis
2,
Etienne Cavalier
1 and
Laurence Lutteri
1
1
Department of Clinical Chemistry, CHU Sart-Tilman, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium
2
Department of Gastroenterology, CHU Sart-Tilman, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2022, 12(10), 2338; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102338
Submission received: 25 August 2022 / Revised: 22 September 2022 / Accepted: 23 September 2022 / Published: 27 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Pathology and Molecular Diagnostics)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: The faecal calprotectin (FC) measurement is used for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) diagnosis and follow-up. The aim of this study was to validate for the first time the new IDS FC extraction device and immunoassay kit, and to compare it with the DiaSorin test in patients with and without IBD. Methods: First, the precision of the IDS assay and its stability were assessed. Then, 379 stool extracts were analysed with the IDS kit on iSYS and compared with a DiaSorin Liaison XL assay. Results: The intra- and inter-assay CVs did not exceed 5%. The stool samples were stable up to 4 weeks at −20 °C. Lot-to-lot comparison showed a good correlation (Lot1 = 1.06 × Lot2 + 0.60; p > 0.05). The Passing and Bablok regression showed no significant deviation from linearity between the two methods (IDS = 1.06 × DiaSorin − 0.6; p > 0.05; concordance correlation coefficient = 0.93). According to the recommended cut-offs, the IDS assay identified more IBD and irritable bowel syndrome patients than DiaSorin, which had more borderline results (16 vs. 20%, respectively). Conclusions: The IDS faecal calprotectin had good analytical validation parameters. Compared to the DiaSorin method, it showed comparable results, but slightly outperformed it in the identification of more IBD patients and active disease.
Keywords: faecal calprotectin; inflammatory bowel disease; method comparison faecal calprotectin; inflammatory bowel disease; method comparison

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Castiglione, V.; Berodes, M.; Lukas, P.; Louis, E.; Cavalier, E.; Lutteri, L. New Faecal Calprotectin Assay by IDS: Validation and Comparison to DiaSorin Method. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102338

AMA Style

Castiglione V, Berodes M, Lukas P, Louis E, Cavalier E, Lutteri L. New Faecal Calprotectin Assay by IDS: Validation and Comparison to DiaSorin Method. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(10):2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102338

Chicago/Turabian Style

Castiglione, Vincent, Maëlle Berodes, Pierre Lukas, Edouard Louis, Etienne Cavalier, and Laurence Lutteri. 2022. "New Faecal Calprotectin Assay by IDS: Validation and Comparison to DiaSorin Method" Diagnostics 12, no. 10: 2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102338

APA Style

Castiglione, V., Berodes, M., Lukas, P., Louis, E., Cavalier, E., & Lutteri, L. (2022). New Faecal Calprotectin Assay by IDS: Validation and Comparison to DiaSorin Method. Diagnostics, 12(10), 2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102338

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop