Performance Evaluation of the Quantitative Point-of-Care LumiraDx D-Dimer Test

Performance evaluation of the LumiraDx quantitative microfluidic point-of-care CRP test

C-reactive protein (CRP) is an established acute-phase marker for infection, inflammation and tissue injury, used to guide clinical decision-making in primary and secondary care. This study compared the analytical performance of the quantitative microfluidic point-of-care LumiraDx CRP Test to a laboratory-based reference method (Siemens RCRP Flex assay on the Dimension® Xpand®) and evaluated equivalence of sample matrices (blood versus plasma) in point-of-care settings using samples from patients presenting with symptoms of infection or inflammation. The LumiraDx CRP Test demonstrated close agreement with the lab reference test (range, 5.1 to 245.2 mg/L, r = 0.992, slope = 0.998, intercept = -0.476; n = 205) and notable agreement between fingerstick and venous blood and plasma (r = 0.974-0.983; n = 44). Paired replicate precision had mean coefficients of variation of 6.4 % (plasma), 6.6 % (capillary direct) and 8.1 % (venous blood); overall error rates were 2.9 %. The quantitative LumiraDx CRP Test showed robust analytical performance across sample matrices and close agreement compared to the laboratory reference method when used at the point of care.

Are the latest point-of-care D-dimer devices ready for use in general practice? A prospective clinical evaluation of five test systems with a capillary blood feature for suspected venous thromboembolism

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated clinical performance of five novel point-of-care (POC) D-dimer devices with a capillary finger stick feature for predicting venous thromboembolism (VTE) in general practice: Exdia TRF Plus (E), AFIAS-1® (A), Standard F200® (S), LumiraDx™ (L) and Hipro AFS/1® (H).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Primary care patients with a low suspicion of a VTE were asked to consent to (i) draw additional venous blood samples, (ii) perform a capillary POC D-dimer test, (iii) approach their general practitioner afterwards for clinical outcomes. Venous plasma samples were processed on all POC devices and a laboratory-based assay (STA-Liatest®D-Di PLUS assay). Results were compared with clinical outcomes to generate performance characteristics. Capillary and venous blood results were used for a matrix comparison.

RESULTS

Venous plasma samples from 511 participants, of whom 57 had VTE, were used for clinical performance analyses. Areas under Receiving Operating Characteristic Curves ranged from 0.90 (95 % CI: 0.86-0.94) (H) to 0.93 (0.90-0.96) (E). All false-negative rates were below 1.4 % (95 % CI: 0.5 %-3.4 %). Matrix comparison demonstrated correlation coefficients ranging from r = 0.11 (95 % CI: -0.15-0.36) (H) to r = 0.94 (0.90-0.97) (A) with concordance percentages ranging from 71.4 % (applying a D-dimer cutoff of 500 ng/mL) (H) to 100 % (applying an age-dependent D-dimer cutoff) (A).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical performance of the POC D-dimer devices for predicting a VTE in low-risk patients was comparable to that of a laboratory-based assay. However, our results indicate that the finger stick feature of certain devices should be further improved. (NL71809.028.19.).

Clinical decision rules in primary care: necessary investments for sustainable healthcare

Clinical judgement in primary care is more often decisive than in the hospital. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) can help general practitioners facilitating the work-through of differentials that follows an initial suspicion, resulting in a concrete 'course of action': a 'rule-out' without further testing, a need for further testing, or a specific treatment. However, in daily primary care, the use of CDRs is limited to only a few isolated rules. In this paper, we aimed to provide insight into the laborious path required to implement a viable CDR. At the same time, we noted that the limited use of CDRs in primary care cannot be explained by implementation barriers alone. Through the case study of the Oudega rule for the exclusion of deep vein thrombosis, we concluded that primary care CDRs come out best if they are tailor-made, taking into consideration the specific context of primary health care. Current CDRs should be evaluated frequently, and future decision rules should anticipate the latest developments such as the use of point-of-care (POC) tests. Hence, such new powerful diagnostic CDRs could improve and expand the possibilities for patient-oriented primary care.