Evaluation of a point‐of‐care test for canine C‐reactive protein

Plickert, Hanna Dorothee; Einspanier, Ralf; Arndt, Gisela; Brunnberg, Leo; Kohn, Barbara

doi:10.1111/j.1939-165x.2011.00339.x

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This supports the conclusions of another study (Plickert et al, 2011). The CRP FASTest was positive in 9 samples (8%) with negative CRP ELISA results.…”

supporting

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of a qualitative canine C-reactive protein test to a quantitative test and traditional markers of inflammation — Short communication

Smuts

Mills

Gaál

2015

Acta Veterinaria Hungarica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Qualitative tests for C-reactive protein (CRP) are available for use in dogs, and provide a rapid in-house method of detecting acute inflammation. The aim of this study was to compare results from a qualitative CRP lateral flow test (Teco CRP FASTest) to those obtained from a quantitative CRP ELISA and to traditional methods of detecting inflammation, including total leukocyte and neutrophil numbers, presence of immature neutrophils and a left shift, presence or absence of toxic changes in neutrophils and plasma fibrinogen concentration in whole blood and serum samples collected from 113 client-owned dogs. More dogs had CRP FASTest positive results than had quantitatively increased CRP (ELISA) or increases in traditional methods used for measuring inflammation. Few dogs had increases in markers of inflammation but no elevated CRP. The qualitative CRP FASTest was found to be a sensitive test for detecting increased CRP concentration and was positive more frequently than were traditional markers of inflammation. Key words: Canine, C-reactive protein, point-of-care laboratory testMaking an early diagnosis of acute inflammation is important for clinicians both in human and veterinary medicine. Detection of non-specific clinical signs of inflammation (e.g. fever, inappetence, lethargy) is complemented by laboratory methods that have been developed for detecting inflammation. Traditionally the presence of leukocytosis and neutrophilia, left shifts and toxic changes in neutrophils, elevated plasma fibrinogen concentrations and accelerated erythrocyte sedimentation rate have been widely used in veterinary laboratories to assess acute inflammatory processes (Jain, 1986). These traditional methods have gradually been replaced or supplemented with measurement of acute phase proteins (APPs), firstly in human, then in veterinary laboratory medicine (Eckersall and Conner, 1988;Kjelgaard-Hansen and Jacobsen, 2011).

show abstract

“…This supports the conclusions of another study (Plickert et al, 2011). The CRP FASTest was positive in 9 samples (8%) with negative CRP ELISA results.…”

supporting

confidence: 80%

“…A relatively new assay, TECOmedical Dog CRP-visual ® (Sissach, Switzerland), a qualitative canine-specific lateral flow POC assay, showed good agreement with a quantitative CRP ELISA method used under laboratory conditions (Plickert et al, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of a qualitative canine C-reactive protein test to a quantitative test and traditional markers of inflammation — Short communication

Smuts

Mills

Gaál

2015

Acta Veterinaria Hungarica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Quantification of canine CRP in serum can be done using several assay formats,81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 all of which have a reference interval of approximately 0–8 mg/L. A high‐sensitivity CRP (hs‐CRP) assay with improved sensitivity for lower serum CRP concentrations89, 90 currently is not routinely available in veterinary medicine 91…”

Section: Biomarkers In Chronic Inflammatory Enteropathies Of Dogsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical utility of currently available biomarkers in inflammatory enteropathies of dogs

Heilmann

Steiner

2018

Veterinary Internal Medicne

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chronic inflammatory enteropathies (CIE) in dogs are a group of disorders that are characterized by chronic persistent or recurrent signs of gastrointestinal disease and histologic evidence of mucosal inflammation. These CIEs are classified as either food‐responsive, antibiotic‐responsive, or immunosuppressant‐responsive enteropathy. Patients not clinically responding to immunomodulatory treatment are grouped as nonresponsive enteropathy and dogs with intestinal protein loss as protein‐losing enteropathy. Disease‐independent clinical scoring systems were established in dogs for assessment of clinical disease severity and patient monitoring during treatment. Histopathologic and routine clinicopathologic findings are usually not able to distinguish the subgroups of CIE. Treatment trials are often lengthy and further diagnostic tests are usually at least minimally invasive. Biomarkers that can aid in defining the presence of disease, site of origin, severity of the disease process, response to treatment, or a combination of these would be clinically useful in dogs with CIE. This article summarizes the following biomarkers that have been evaluated in dogs with CIE during the last decade, and critically evaluates their potential clinical utility in dogs with CIE: functional biomarkers (cobalamin, methylmalonic acid, folate, α1‐proteinase inhibitor, immunoglobulin A), biochemical biomarkers (C‐reactive protein, perinuclear anti‐neutrophilic cytoplasmic antibodies, 3‐bromotyrosine, N‐methylhistamine, calprotectin, S100A12, soluble receptor of advanced glycation end products, cytokines and chemokines, alkaline phosphatase), microbiomic biomarkers (microbiome changes, dysbiosis index), metabolomic biomarkers (serum metabolome), genetic biomarkers (genomic markers, gene expression changes), and cellular biomarkers (regulatory T cells). In addition, important performance criteria of diagnostic tests are briefly reviewed.

show abstract

Section: Inflammatory Respiratory Diseasementioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are several analyzers that have been evaluated for measurement of canine CRP . Recently, a point‐of‐care test has been evaluated for CRP and it was found to have very good agreement with a previously validated ELISA test . Despite the availability of a point‐of‐care test, CRP concentration is unlikely to be of benefit to differentiate between causes of dyspnea in dogs and cats as it has repeatedly been shown to increase in response to a variety of causes and common comorbidities in people and veterinary species.…”

Section: Inflammatory Respiratory Diseasementioning

confidence: 99%

Biomarkers for differentiation of causes of respiratory distress in dogs and cats: Part 2 – Lower airway, thromboembolic, and inflammatory diseases

Smith¹,

Quinn

Rahilly³

2015

J Vet Emergen Crit Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluation of a point‐of‐care test for canine C‐reactive protein

Abstract: The POC test had very good agreement with the ELISA test and had high sensitivity and specificity; therefore, it can be used as a qualitative test to screen for increases in CRP concentrations.

Cited by 13 publications

References 22 publications

Comparison of a qualitative canine C-reactive protein test to a quantitative test and traditional markers of inflammation — Short communication

Comparison of a qualitative canine C-reactive protein test to a quantitative test and traditional markers of inflammation — Short communication

Clinical utility of currently available biomarkers in inflammatory enteropathies of dogs

Biomarkers for differentiation of causes of respiratory distress in dogs and cats: Part 2 – Lower airway, thromboembolic, and inflammatory diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About