Comparison of the Liaison® Calprotectin kit with a well established point of care test (Quantum Blue - Bühlmann-Alere®) in terms of analytical performances and ability to detect relapses amongst a Crohn population in follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Although colonoscopy associated with histopathological sampling remains the gold standard in the diagnostic and follow-up of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), calprotectin is becoming an essential biomarker in gastroenterology. The aim of this work is to compare a newly developed kit (Liaison® Calprotectin - Diasorin®) and its two distinct extraction protocols (weighing and extraction device protocol) with a well established point of care test (Quantum Blue® - Bühlmann-Alere®) in terms of analytical performances and ability to detect relapses amongst a Crohn's population in follow-up. METHODS: Stool specimens were collected over a six month period and were composed of control and Crohn's patients. Amongst the Crohn's population disease activity (active vs quiescent) was evaluated by gastroenterologists. RESULTS: A significant difference was found between all three procedures in terms of calprotectin measurements (weighing protocol=30.3µg/g (median); stool extraction device protocol=36.9µg/g (median); Quantum Blue® (median)=63; Friedman test, P value=0.05). However, a good correlation was found between both extraction methods coupled with the Liaison® analyzer and between the Quantum Blue® (weighing protocol/extraction device protocol Rs=0.844, P=0.01; Quantum Blue®/extraction device protocol Rs=0.708, P=0.01; Quantum Blue®/weighing protocol, Rs=0.808, P=0.01). Finally, optimal cut-offs (and associated negative predictive values - NPV) for detecting relapses were in accordance with above results (Quantum Blue® 183.5µg/g and NPV of 100%>extraction device protocol+Liaison® analyzer 124.5µg/g and NPV of 93.5%>weighing protocol+Liaison® analyzer 106.5µg/g and NPV of 95%). CONCLUSIONS: Although all three methods correlated well and had relatively good NPV in terms of detecting relapses amongst a Crohn's population in follow-up, the lack of any international standard is the origin of different optimal cut-offs between the three procedures.

Antimicrobial susceptibility of Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates from vaccinated and non-vaccinated patients with a clinically confirmed diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia in Belgium.

We assessed the in vitro susceptibility of Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates from patients with confirmed community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) to ß-lactams, macrolides and fluoroquinolones and the association of non-susceptibility and resistance with serotypes/serogroups (STs/SGs), patient's risk factors and vaccination status. Samples (blood or lower respiratory tract) were obtained in 2007-2009 from 249 patients (from seven hospitals in Belgium) with a clinical and radiological diagnosis of CAP [median age 61 years (11.6% aged <5 years); 85% without previous antibiotic therapy; 86% adults with level II Niederman's severity score]. MIC determination (EUCAST breakpoints) showed for: (i) amoxicillin, 6% non-susceptible; cefuroxime (oral), 6.8% resistant; (ii) macrolides: 24.9% erythromycin-resistant [93.5% erm(B)-positive] but 98.4% telithromycin-susceptible; and (iii) levofloxacin and moxifloxacin, all susceptible. Amongst SGs: ST14, all resistant to macrolides and most intermediate to ß-lactams; SG19 (>94% ST19A), 73.5% resistant to macrolides and 18-21% intermediate to ß-lactams; and SG6, 33% resistant to clarithromycin. Apparent vaccine failures: 3/17 for 7-valent vaccine (children; ST6B, 23F); 16/29 for 23-valent vaccine (adults ST3, 7F, 12F, 14, 19A, 22F, 23F, 33F). Isolates from nursing home residents, hospitalised patients and patients with non-respiratory co-morbidities showed increased MICs for amoxicillin, all ß-lactams, and ß-lactams and macrolides, respectively. Regarding antibiotic susceptibilities: (i) amoxicillin is still useful for empirical therapy but with a high daily dose; (ii) cefuroxime axetil and macrolides (but not telithromycin) are inappropriate for empirical therapy; and (iii) moxifloxacin and levofloxacin are the next 'best empirical choice' (no resistant isolates) but levofloxacin will require 500 mg twice-daily dosing for effective coverage.