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.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 1,078.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.