Accuracy of the Precision(R) point-of-care ketone test examined by liquid chromatography tandem-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in the same fingerstick sample

BACKGROUND: The Precision((R)) (Abbott Diabetes Care) point-of-care biosensor test strips are widely used by patients with diabetes and clinical laboratories for measurement of plasma beta-hydroxybutyrate (beta-HB) concentrations in capillary blood samples obtained by fingerstick. In the literature, this procedure has been validated only against the enzymatic determination of beta-HB in venous plasma, i.e., the method to which the Precision((R)) has been calibrated. METHODS: In this study, the Precision((R)) Xceed was compared to a methodologically different and superior procedure: determination of beta-HB by liquid chromatography tandem-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in capillary blood spots. Blood spots were obtained from the same fingerstick sample from out of which Precision((R)) measurements were performed. Linearity was tested by adding varying amounts of standard to an EDTA venous whole blood matrix. RESULTS: The Precision((R)) was in good agreement with LC-MS/MS within the measuring range of 0.0-6.0 mmol/L (Passing and Bablok regression: slope=1.20 and no significant intercept, R=0.97, n=59). Surprisingly, the Precision((R)) showed non-linearity and full saturation at concentrations above 6.0 mmol/L, which were confirmed by a standard addition experiment. Results obtained at the saturation level varied between 3.0 and 6.5 mmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: The Precision((R)) beta-HB test strips demonstrate good comparison with LC-MS/MS. Inter-individual variation around the saturation level, however, is large. Therefore, we advise reporting readings above 3.0 as >3.0 mmol/L. The test is valid for use in the clinically relevant range of 0.0-3.0 mmol/L

The validity of the DSM-IV diagnostic classification system of non-affective psychoses

Objective: The schizophrenia and other non-affective disorders categories listed in the DSM-IV, are currently under revision for the development of the fifth edition. The aim of the present study is to demonstrate the validity of these categories by investigating possible differences between diagnostic patient subgroups on various measures. Methods: 1064 patients with a diagnosis of non-affective psychosis (schizophrenia N = 731 (paranoid type 82%), schizoaffective N = 63, schizophreniform N = 120, psychosis not otherwise specified/brief psychotic disorder N = 150) participated in this study. Dependent variables were demographic and clinical characteristics, severity of psychopathology, premorbid and current functioning, and indicators of quality of life. Results: Within the diagnostic group of schizophrenia, no significant differences were observed between paranoid schizophrenia, disorganized, and undifferentiated schizophrenia. Patients with schizophrenia experienced more severe psychopathology and had poorer levels of current functioning compared to patients with psychosis not otherwise specified or brief psychotic disorder. Differences between schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder were less clear. Conclusion: Our results do not support the validity of schizophrenia subtypes. Schizophrenia can be distinguished from brief psychotic disorder and psychotic disorder not otherwise specified. These findings may fuel the actual DSM-V discussion