Why the study?
Are commercial human cardiac troponin I assays analytically valid for use in horses?
Are commercial human cardiac troponin I assays analytically valid for use in horses?
Certain human cardiac troponin I assays are analytically valid for equine use, but significant variability between assays requires assay-specific reference intervals.
Without validation, human cTnI results in horses risk misdiagnosis; this study leaves equine clinical adoption open.
Human cardiac troponin I (cTnI) assays have been used in equine medicine, often without prior analytical validation for equine use. In the absence of appropriate validation, the clinical significance of assay results is uncertain and can lead to misdiagnosis. We followed the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology guidelines and investigated linearity, precision, limit of quantification (LoQ), and comparative recovery for 6 commercial cTnI assays developed for use in human medicine. Clinically acceptable linearity was observed in assays A-D, whereas assay E did not detect equine cTnI in any sample. Comparative recovery revealed 1-3-fold differences between assay results, and low analyte recoveries (2.2-3.4%) were observed in assay F. Precision was investigated in assays A and B, and found to be within acceptable limits. The LoQ was 1.53 ng/L for assay A, and 0.031 µg/L for assay B. Assays A and B performed within clinically acceptable limits and were deemed suitable for use in equine medicine. Assays C and D did not undergo full validation but had acceptable linearity, which demonstrates their potential for use in equine medicine. Assays E and F are unsuitable for use in horses given issues with detection of equine cTnI. The variability in results between assays indicates that reference intervals and cutoffs for diagnostic decision-making are assay specific and should be established prior to adoption by diagnostic laboratories.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rossi et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: