{"title":"The CF Quantum Sweat Test: Not Ready for Clinical Use","authors":"Michael Rock, Vicky LeGrys","doi":"10.29074/ascls.2019002105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>ABSTRACT</h3> The cystic fibrosis (CF) Quantum test (CFQT) showed promise in a previous pilot study; however, there was greater imprecision in one patch lot. Following the pilot study, the manufacturer changed their fabricating procedures. Participants with previously diagnosed CF or participants who required a sweat test for clinical reasons were invited to undergo the CFQT research test and a conventional sweat test (Macroduct collection and chloride analysis via the ChloroChek chloridometer). Previously diagnosed CF (<i>n</i> = 41) and CF transmembrane regulator–related metabolic syndrome/CF screen positive inconclusive diagnosis (<i>n</i> = 3) patients and patients who required a sweat test for clinical indications (<i>n</i> = 22) were recruited to have bilateral CFQT along with the Macroduct test performed on the same day. Pairs of data from each test were plotted as a correlation graph, bias plot, and Bland Altman plot. Coefficient of variation (CV) between extremities and quantity-not-sufficient (QNS) rates for both tests were calculated. The CV between left and right extremities was greater in the CFQT (9.5%) compared with the Macroduct (4.8%). The QNS rates of the two tests were comparable (CFQT, 6.8%; Macroduct, 6.0%). There was greater imprecision with the CFQT results. The diagnostic agreement between the two tests was 100% positive percent agreement (95% confidence interval [CI], 90%–100%), 100% negative percent agreement (95% CI, 80%–100%), 67% intermediate percent agreement (95% CI, 30%–80%), and 92% overall percent agreement (95% CI, 80%–100%). This follow-up study demonstrated that the CFQT is not analytically nor diagnostically reliable (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01345617).","PeriodicalId":72611,"journal":{"name":"Clinical laboratory science : journal of the American Society for Medical Technology","volume":"331 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical laboratory science : journal of the American Society for Medical Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29074/ascls.2019002105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT
The cystic fibrosis (CF) Quantum test (CFQT) showed promise in a previous pilot study; however, there was greater imprecision in one patch lot. Following the pilot study, the manufacturer changed their fabricating procedures. Participants with previously diagnosed CF or participants who required a sweat test for clinical reasons were invited to undergo the CFQT research test and a conventional sweat test (Macroduct collection and chloride analysis via the ChloroChek chloridometer). Previously diagnosed CF (n = 41) and CF transmembrane regulator–related metabolic syndrome/CF screen positive inconclusive diagnosis (n = 3) patients and patients who required a sweat test for clinical indications (n = 22) were recruited to have bilateral CFQT along with the Macroduct test performed on the same day. Pairs of data from each test were plotted as a correlation graph, bias plot, and Bland Altman plot. Coefficient of variation (CV) between extremities and quantity-not-sufficient (QNS) rates for both tests were calculated. The CV between left and right extremities was greater in the CFQT (9.5%) compared with the Macroduct (4.8%). The QNS rates of the two tests were comparable (CFQT, 6.8%; Macroduct, 6.0%). There was greater imprecision with the CFQT results. The diagnostic agreement between the two tests was 100% positive percent agreement (95% confidence interval [CI], 90%–100%), 100% negative percent agreement (95% CI, 80%–100%), 67% intermediate percent agreement (95% CI, 30%–80%), and 92% overall percent agreement (95% CI, 80%–100%). This follow-up study demonstrated that the CFQT is not analytically nor diagnostically reliable (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01345617).