Background: Faecal calprotectin (f-Cp), a marker of intestinal inflammation, can be used to distinguish between functional and organic bowel disease. F-Cp, following extraction, is commonly quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) but there are no data comparing the different f-Cp assays or sample extraction devices. We, therefore, evaluated and compared the performance of the Immunodiagnostik, Bü hlmann and Eurospital f-Cp ELISA assays as well as the Roche, Immunodiagnostik and ScheBo Biotech commercial faecal extraction devices. We also briefly report results from a pilot f-Cp external quality assurance (EQA) scheme. Methods: Imprecision, linearity, recovery, drift and limit of quantitation of the f-Cp assays were evaluated and between-assay variability assessed. The three commercial sample extraction devices were compared with the manual weighing method. Four faecal samples were distributed as part of a pilot EQA scheme to 15 laboratories using quantitative ELISA f-Cp assays. Results: The three f-Cp assays demonstrated adequate intra-/interbatch imprecision, linearity and recovery. The crosscomparison study and EQA data demonstrated that, for the same sample, the Bü hlmann assay reports up to 3.8 times higher f-Cp concentrations than the Immunodiagnostik and Eurospital assays. On average, the commercial extraction devices led to a 7.8-28.1% under-recovery of f-Cp in comparison to the manual weighing method. Conclusions: Laboratories should be aware of the lack of the assay standardization, as demonstrated by the between-assay variability. A comparison between f-Cp concentrations reported by these assays and clinical markers of disease severity is required in order to determine their diagnostic accuracy. The EQA scheme represents the first available programme for f-Cp.

Order of draw of blood samples using the Sarstedt Safety Monovette system has no effect on serum biochemistry results, when samples are taken by an experienced phlebotomist.

Background Potassium EDTA (kEDTA) contamination of serum samples is common, causing spurious hyperkalemia, hypozincemia, and hypocalcemia that if unrecognized may adversely affect patient care. Gross kEDTA contamination is easy to detect, but identification of spurious electrolytes due to small amounts of contamination requires measurement of serum EDTA. We validated an EDTA assay on the Abbott Architect and reassessed its value in identifying kEDTA contamination and in studying mechanisms for contamination. Methods Within- and between-batch imprecision, linearity, recovery, interference, and carryover were assessed. Serum supplemented with k2EDTA plasma, to mimic sample contamination, was used to study its effect on potassium, calcium, zinc, magnesium, and alkaline phosphatase. Our current laboratory protocol for identification of kEDTA contamination, based on measurement of serum calcium, was compared to that of EDTA measurement. Results The EDTA assay displayed acceptable performance characteristics. Hemoglobin was a positive interferent. EDTA was detectable in serum contaminated with 1% (v:v) k2EDTA plasma. An increase in serum potassium of 0.54 mmol/L (11.9%) was observed at a measured EDTA concentration of 0.19 mmol/L, equivalent to 3.2% (v:v) contamination. At this EDTA concentration reductions were also observed in zinc (71%), calcium (1%), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (4%), and magnesium (2.4%). The serum EDTA assay detected contamination in 31/106 patient samples with hyperkalemia (potassium ≥6.0mmol/L), 20 of which were undetected by the current laboratory protocol. Conclusions The EDTA assay displayed acceptable performance, with the ability to reliably measure EDTA at low concentrations. Only a small amount of kEDTA causes significant spurious hyperkalemia and is only reliably detected with EDTA measurement.

POCT has clear advantages for delivering NHS Health Checks over the laboratory-based approach although device performance does differ. Users should also be aware of the potential clinical governance and interference issues associated with these devices.

Differentiation between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and functional gut disorders, and the determination of mucosal disease activity in established cases of IBD remain the cornerstones of disease diagnosis and management. Non-invasive, accurate biomarkers of gut inflammation are needed due to the variability of symptoms, the inaccuracies of currently available blood markers and the cost and invasive nature of endoscopy. Numerous biomarkers have been used and/or considered with some in current use. This article reviews the current evidence base around the indications for using biomarkers and their limitations, with a particular focus on faecal calprotectin.