A semi-blinded study comparing 2 methods of measuring nasal potential difference: Subcutaneous needle versus dermal abrasion

Wachter, Elke De; Schutter, Iris De; Meulemans, Ann; Buyl, Ronald; Malfroot, Anne

doi:10.1016/j.jcf.2015.06.007

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We used a dermal abrasion because it was validated in our institution and because of the operator's expertise. De Watcher et al reported both methods are similar and acceptable suggesting that the operators preferred NPD-method should be used [29]. (iii) The final NPD step with an ATP-solution was not performed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chloride Conductance, Nasal Potential Difference and Cystic Fibrosis Pathophysiology

Procianoy

Silva

Maróstica

et al. 2019

Lung

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to selfarchive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com".

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chloride Conductance, Nasal Potential Difference and Cystic Fibrosis Pathophysiology

Procianoy

Silva

Maróstica

et al. 2019

Lung

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…NPD is an indirect assessment of the ion transport in the nasal airway epithelia: the change in voltage reflecting the change in current. The technique was first described by Knowles et al [108], and was subsequently optimized and standardized [109][110][111][112][113][114].…”

Section: Nasal Potential Difference (Npd)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assays of CFTR Function In Vitro, Ex Vivo and In Vivo

Ramalho

Boon

Proesmans

et al. 2022

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cystic fibrosis, a multi-organ genetic disease, is characterized by abnormal function of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein, a chloride channel at the apical membrane of several epithelia. In recent years, therapeutic strategies have been developed to correct the CFTR defect. To evaluate CFTR function at baseline for diagnosis, or the efficacy of CFTR-restoring therapy, reliable tests are needed to measure CFTR function, in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo. In vitro techniques either directly or indirectly measure ion fluxes; direct measurement of ion fluxes and quenching of fluorescence in cell-based assays, change in transmembrane voltage or current in patch clamp or Ussing chamber, swelling of CFTR-containing organoids by secondary water influx upon CFTR activation. Several cell or tissue types can be used. Ex vivo and in vivo assays similarly evaluate current (intestinal current measurement) and membrane potential differences (nasal potential difference), on tissues from individual patients. In the sweat test, the most frequently used in vivo evaluation of CFTR function, chloride concentration or stimulated sweat rate can be directly measured. Here, we will describe the currently available bio-assays for quantitative evaluation of CFTR function, their indications, advantages and disadvantages, and correlation with clinical outcome measures.

show abstract

A systematic review of animal and human data comparing the nasal potential difference test between cystic fibrosis and control

Leenaars,

Stafleu,

Häger

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nasal potential difference test (nPD) is an electrophysiological measurement which is altered in patients and animal models with cystic fibrosis (CF). Because protocols and outcomes vary substantially between laboratories, there are concerns over its validity and precision. We performed a systematic literature review (SR) of the nPD to answer the following review questions: A. Is the nasal potential difference similarly affected in CF patients and animal models?”, and B. “Is the nPD in human patients and animal models of CF similarly affected by various changes in the experimental set-up?”. The review protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42021236047). We searched PubMed and Embase with comprehensive search strings. Two independent reviewers screened all references for inclusion and extracted all data. Included were studies about CF which described in vivo nPD measurements in separate CF and control groups. Risk of bias was assessed, and three meta-analyses were performed. We included 130 references describing nPD values for CF and control subjects, which confirmed substantial variation in the experimental design and nPD outcome between groups. The meta-analyses showed a clear difference in baseline nPD values between CF and control subjects, both in animals and in humans. However, baseline nPD values were, on average, lower in animal than in human studies. Reporting of experimental details was poor for both animal and human studies, and urgently needs to improve to ensure reproducibility of experiments within and between species.

show abstract

A semi-blinded study comparing 2 methods of measuring nasal potential difference: Subcutaneous needle versus dermal abrasion

Abstract: Both NPD methods are similar in terms of discriminative value and subject's preference, comparing classical CF and HV. For diagnosing CF, the operator's preferred NPD-method may be used.

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Chloride Conductance, Nasal Potential Difference and Cystic Fibrosis Pathophysiology

Chloride Conductance, Nasal Potential Difference and Cystic Fibrosis Pathophysiology

Assays of CFTR Function In Vitro, Ex Vivo and In Vivo

A systematic review of animal and human data comparing the nasal potential difference test between cystic fibrosis and control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About