A plasma separator with a multifunctional deformable chamber equipped with a porous membrane for point-of-care diagnostics

The Analyst ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 145 (18) ◽  
pp. 6138-6147
Author(s):  
Xianbo Qiu ◽  
Huiqin Jiang ◽  
Xiaolei Zhang ◽  
Ke Li ◽  
Shengxiang Ge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Whole Blood ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Porous Membrane ◽  
Point Of Care Testing ◽  
Plasma Separation ◽  
Point Of Care Diagnostics ◽  
Short Time

For point-of-care testing, a membrane-assisted, sedimentation-facilitated plasma separator with a multifunctional deformable chamber is developed to perform plasma separation from undiluted whole blood in a short time.

scholarly journals RAMPTM: A Rapid, Quantitative Whole Blood Immunochromatographic Platform for Point-of-Care Testing

1999 ◽  
Vol 45 (9) ◽  
pp. 1676-1678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald E Brooks ◽  
Dana V Devine ◽  
Paul C Harris ◽  
Joanne E Harris ◽  
Mark E Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Whole Blood ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Point Of Care Testing

scholarly journals P295 Comparative Assessment of Infliximab Trough Levels between Point-of-Care Testing and current Standard of Care (enzyme linked immunosorbent assay) in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S325-S325
Author(s):  
D Maniero ◽  
G Lorenzon ◽  
I Marsilio ◽  
A Rigo ◽  
R Cardin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Whole Blood ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay ◽  
Blood Collection ◽  
Point Of Care Testing ◽  
Deming Regression ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
Trough Levels

Abstract Background Infliximab (IFX) is a monoclonal antibody that targets cytokine tumor necrosis factor; it is used for the treatment of patients with active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). IFX induces and maintains remission and mucosal healing in patients with IBD. Measurement of trough levels (TL) of IFX is important to assess if the drug is within its therapeutic concentrationand to explain lack/loss of response. Standard laboratory tests to assess IFX trough levels (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays, ELISA) present some downsides, related to the long turnaround (about 3 hours), and the need of specialized equipment and laboratory personnel. For this reason, point-of care testing (POCT) was developed to provide results within a few minutes from blood collection, leading to a decision-making approach. Aim To determine the degree of analytical correlation between a recently developed POCT (ProciseDx) IFX assay which analyze capillary whole blood and the comparative ELISA from serum. Methods From October 2020 to January 2021, patients (aged≥18 years) taking IFX were recruited at Gastroenterology Unit, Padua University Hospital. In each patient, IFX levels from capillary whole blood collected by finger stick were performed using the ProciseDx IFX assay with reportable range between 1.7-77.2 µg/mL; at the same time, a serum sample from venous blood was collected to carry out Grifols’ Promonitor ELISA test (range 0.035–14.4 µg/mL). A Deming regression test was used to identify the correlation between the two methods. Results Eighty-seven patients were enrolled (63% males; mean age of 44±16), with 52% of them having CD, 45% UC and 3% an undetermined-Inflammatory Bowel Disease. The assessment with ProciseDx POCT was feasible in each patient and only in three cases blood collection from finger prick was repeated. Moreover, from blood collection to results we needed about 3±0.5 minutes, while serum ELISA analysis required the collection of at least 40 samples (around three weeks at our centre) and 3 hours to be performed. 39 patients (59% males; mean age of 44±16) had TL as assessed by ProciseDx IFX assay lower than 1.7 or greater than 14.4 µg/mL, in accordance with ELISA assessment. Among the remaining 48 patients (67% males with mean age of 45±17), The correlation between the two tests was high (the total results showed an R squared of 0.691 (95% CI 0.717-0.902). Conclusion The ProciseDx POCT has good accuracy but was more rapid and easy to be performed in providing the results of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in outpatients taking IFX. This could lead to a more effective optimization of the biological drug, thus avoiding treatment failure.

A sample-to-answer quantitative platform for point-of-care testing of biochemical markers in whole blood

2020 ◽  
Vol 308 ◽  
pp. 127750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huan Xu ◽  
Anyue Xia ◽  
Jie Luo ◽  
Mingxuan Gao ◽  
Renkuan Liao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Whole Blood ◽  
Biochemical Markers ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Point Of Care Testing

Quality assuring HIV point of care testing using whole blood samples

Pathology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 498-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raellene Dare-Smith ◽  
Tony Badrick ◽  
Philip Cunningham ◽  
Alison Kesson ◽  
Susan Badman
Keyword(s):  
Whole Blood ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Point Of Care Testing ◽  
Blood Samples ◽  
Whole Blood Samples

Point-of-care testing of the international normalized ratio in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies

2005 ◽  
Vol 94 (12) ◽  
pp. 1196-1202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory P. Samsa ◽  
Thomas L. Ortel ◽  
Stephanie L. Perry
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Whole Blood ◽  
Antiphospholipid Antibodies ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
International Normalized Ratio ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Factor X ◽  
Point Of Care Testing ◽  
Laboratory Plasma ◽  
Finger Stick

SummaryAntiphospholipid antibodies can influence the results of clotting tests in a subset of patients, which can be a major obstacle in monitoring warfarin. The aim was to determine if point-of-care testing of the International Normalized Ratio (INR) is influenced by antiphospholipid antibodies. We compared 59 patients receiving warfarin for a diagnosis of antiphosphoipid antibody syndrome (APS) to 49 patients receiving warfarin for atrial fibrillation to evaluate the consistency between INR results obtained by different methods. INR results obtained by finger stick (capillary whole-blood) and venipuncture (non-citrated and citrated whole-blood) were compared with our laboratory plasma-based prothrombin time assay. Five patients (8%) with APS and both elevated anti-β2glycoprotein I levels and positive lupus anticoagulants had non-measurable ProTime® INR results and generally higher Hemochron® Signature INR results than the plasma-based method, but the corresponding chromogenic factor X results were not supratherapeutic. For the remaining patients, differences between the plasma-based INR and the point-of-care INR results ranged from 0.2±0.2 to 0.4±0.3. The differences were similar for patients with APS and atrial fibrillation for all INR comparisons with the exception of the plasma-based method compared with the ProTime, which showed a mean absolute difference of 0.4±0.3 for APS patients and of 0.2±0.2 for atrial fibrillation patients (p=0.02). In a subset ofAPS patients, the ProTime® system will not yield an INR result and the HEMochron Signature (citrate and non-citrate whole-blood) INR results will exhibit elevated INR results. For this subset of APS patients, we suggest using an alternative method to monitor warfarin.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document