Premium
Evaluation of a clinic‐based cholinesterase test kit for the Washington State Cholinesterase Monitoring Program
Author(s) -
Hofmann Jonathan N.,
Carden Angela,
Fenske Richard A.,
Ruark Harold E.,
Keifer Matthew C.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
american journal of industrial medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.7
H-Index - 104
eISSN - 1097-0274
pISSN - 0271-3586
DOI - 10.1002/ajim.20588
Subject(s) - cholinesterase , medicine , toxicology , test (biology) , biology , paleontology
Abstract Background The Washington State Cholinesterase Monitoring Program for pesticide handlers requires blood draws at local clinics, with samples tested at a central laboratory. At present, workers with inhibited cholinesterase activity may be re‐exposed before they can be removed from work. In this study we explored the option of on‐site testing at local clinics using the EQM Test‐mate Kit™, a portable cholinesterase test kit. Methods Test kit cholinesterase activity measurements were performed on 50 blood samples by our research staff, and compared to measurements on the same samples by the Washington State Public Health Laboratory. Another set of samples was also analyzed with the test kit by medical staff at an eastern Washington clinic. Results Triplicate measurements with the test kit had a 3.3% average coefficient of variation (CV) for plasma cholinesterase (PChE), and a 3.5% average CV for erythrocyte cholinesterase (AChE) measurements. The kit's PChE measurements were similar to PHL measurements (average ratio of 0.98) when performed in the laboratory, but had a tendency to underestimate activity when used in the clinic setting (average ratio of 0.87). The kit systematically overestimated AChE activity by 42–48% relative to the PHL measurements, regardless of where the samples were analyzed. Conclusions This easy‐to‐use test kit appeared to be a viable method for clinic‐based PChE measurements, but was less consistent for AChE measurements performed in the clinic. Absolute measurements with the kit need to be evaluated carefully relative to standardized methods. Am. J. Ind. Med. 51:532–538, 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.