266
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Diagnostics

Automated cell differential count in sputum is feasible and comparable to manual cell count in identifying eosinophilia

, MD, PhDORCID Icon, , MD, PhD, , BSci, , MD, PhDORCID Icon, , MD, , BSci, , MD, PhDORCID Icon & , MD, DMSci show all
Pages 552-560 | Received 08 Sep 2020, Accepted 20 Dec 2020, Published online: 08 Jan 2021
 

Abstract

Introduction

Cell differential count (CDC) of induced sputum is considered the gold standard for inflammatory phenotyping of asthma but is not implemented in routine care due to its heavy time- and staff demands. Digital Cell Morphology is a technique where digital images of cells are captured and presented preclassified as white blood cells (neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, macrophages, and unidentified) and nonwhite blood cells for review. With this study, we wanted to assess the accuracy of an automated CDC in identifying the key inflammatory cells in induced sputum.

Methods

Sputum from 50 patients with asthma was collected and processed using the standard processing protocol with one drop 20% albumin added to hinder cell smudging. Each slide was counted automatically using the CellaVision DM96 and manually by an experienced lab technician. Sputum was classified as eosinophilic or neutrophilic using 3% and 61% cutoffs, respectively.

Results

We found a good agreement using intraclass correlation for all target cells, despite significant differences in the cell count rate. The automated CDC had a sensitivity of 65%, a specificity of 93%, and a kappa-coefficient of 0.61 for identification of sputum eosinophilia. In contrast, the automated CDC had a sensitivity of 29%, a specificity of 100%, and a kappa-coefficient of 0.23 for identification of sputum neutrophilia.

Conclusion

Automated- and manual cell counts of sputum agree with regards to the key inflammatory cells. The automated cell count had a modest sensitivity but a high specificity for the identification of both neutrophil and eosinophil asthma.

Acknowledgements

Authors thank Margit Grome for her expert knowledge and keen guidance in setting up the CellaVision DM96. They also thank The BREATHE-study group for providing a research platform enabling this study.

Declaration of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.