Download PDF
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2014; 74(7): 661-669
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1368589
Original Article
GebFra Science
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Strips of Hope: Accuracy of Home Pregnancy Tests and New Developments

Hoffnungsstreifen: Zuverlässigkeit von Urin-Schwangerschaftstests und neue Entwicklungen
C. Gnoth
1   green-ivf, Grevenbroich, Germany
2   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
S. Johnson
3   SPD Development Company Ltd., Bedford, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 01 April 2014
revised 01 May 2014

accepted 20 May 2014

Publication Date:
01 August 2014 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The first home pregnancy test was introduced in 1976. Since then, pregnancy tests have become the most common diagnostic assay used at home. Pregnancy tests use antibodies to detect human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). It is an ideal marker of pregnancy since it rises rapidly and consistently in early pregnancy and can be detected in urine. The most advanced home pregnancy test currently available assesses the level of hCG found in urine and claims to provide women with reliable results within just a few weeks of pregnancy. Today, over 15 different types of home pregnancy test are available to buy over the counter in Germany. Many tests claim to be highly accurate and capable of detecting pregnancy before the next monthly period is due, although claims such as 8 days prior to menstruation are unrealistic. However, users and healthcare professionals should be aware that, although all are labelled as CE, there are currently no standard criteria for testing performance and claims. This review provides an overview of the development of home pregnancy tests and the data on their efficacy together with an analysis of published data on the accuracy of hCG for the detection of early pregnancy and studies on the use of home-based pregnancy tests. Preliminary data on some home pregnancy tests available in Germany are presented which indicate that many results do not match the claims made in the package insert. Healthcare professionals and women should be aware that some of the claims made for home pregnancy tests are inconsistent and that common definitions and testing criteria are urgently needed.

Zusammenfassung

Der erste Urinschwangerschaftstest wurde 1976 vorgestellt und seitdem gehören diese Tests zu den am häufigsten durchgeführten Laboruntersuchungen in der Eigenanwendung. Schwangerschaftstests gehören nach der europäischen Richtlinie 98/79/EG zu den In-vitro-Diagnostika der Medizinprodukte. Sie sind keiner Risikoliste zugeordnet. Anders als in den USA führt weder das Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (BMfArM) noch die Zentralstelle der Länder für Gesundheitsschutz bei Arzneimitteln und Medizinprodukten (ZLG) eine Liste geprüfter und zugelassener Schwangerschaftstests. Im vergangenen Jahr war zwischenzeitlich geplant, die hCG-Bestimmung aus dem Urin in der frauenärztlichen Praxis einer externen Qualitätskontrolle zu unterziehen, ohne dass kommerzielle Schwangerschaftstests ihre Genauigkeit und Sensitivität unter Beweis stellen mussten und es bis heute auch keine Standards für eine solche Überprüfung gibt. In Apotheken und Drogeriemärkten in Deutschland sind derzeit über 15 verschiedene Heim-Schwangerschaftstests erhältlich. Viele dieser Schwangerschaftstests behaupten, mit einer hohen Genauigkeit und Empfindlichkeit hCG im Urin festzustellen, oft angeblich bereits einige Tage vor der erwarteten Periodenblutung. Diese Arbeit gibt einen Überblick über die Entwicklung von Urin-Schwangerschaftstests sowie die vorhandenen Daten zur Genauigkeit und Sensitivität der hCG-Messung und informiert über neue Entwicklungen. Es werden erste Daten einer vergleichenden Überprüfung in Deutschland verkaufter Schwangerschaftstests vorgestellt, die zeigen, dass nicht viele den Versprechungen auf ihren Verpackungen genügen. Allen Benutzern von Heim-Schwangerschaftstests müssen die Grenzen dieser Methode und die Anfälligkeit einzelner Tests bekannt sein, um nicht falsche Schlussfolgerungen zu ziehen. In Anbetracht der großen Bedeutung des Ergebnisses eines Schwangerschaftstests für jede einzelne Frau ist auch in Deutschland dringend eine offizielle Prüfung und Zulassung einzelner Tests vor dem Verkauf und später eine Produktüberwachung notwendig.

Key words

pregnancy - pregnancy test - hCG

Schlüsselwörter

Schwangerschaft - Hormone - hCG - Schwangerschaftstest
 

  • References

  • 1 Richtlinie 98/79/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und Rates vom 27. Oktober 1998 über In-vitro-Diagnostika, Anhang III.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Öko-Test, Ratgeber Gesundheit und Fitness 8/2008.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Birken S, Berger P, Bidart J-M et al. Preparation and characterisation of new WHO standards for human chorionic gonadotropin and metabolites. Clin Chem 2003; 49: 144-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bristow A, Berger P, Bidart J et al. Establishment, value assignment, and characterization of new WHO reference reagents for six molecular forms of human chorionic gonadotropin. Clin Chem 2005; 51: 177-182
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sturgeon CM, Berger P, Bidart J et al. Differences in recognition of the 1st WHO international reference reagents for hCG-related isoforms by diagnostic immunoassays for human chorionic gonadotropin. Clin Chem 2009; 55: 1484-1491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Alfthan H, Stenman U-H. Pregnancy serum contains the core fragment of human chroriogonadotropin. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1990; 70: 783-787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cole LA, Kardana A, Ying FC et al. The biological and clinical significance of nicks in human chorionic gonadotropin and its free beta-subunit. Yale J Biol Med 1991; 64: 627-637
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 McChesney R, Wilcox AJ, OʼConnor JF et al. Intact HCG, free HCG beta subunit and HCG beta core fragment: longitudinal patterns in urine during early pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 928-935
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kovalevskaya G, Birken S, Kakuma T et al. Early pregnancy human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) isoforms measured by an immunometric assay for choriocarcinoma-like hCG. J Endocrinol 1999; 161: 99-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kovalevskaya G, Kakuma T, Schlatterer J et al. Hyperglycosylated hCG expression in pregnancy: cellular origin and clinical applications. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2007; 260: 237-243
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Butler SA, Khanlian SA, Cole LA. Detection of early pregnancy forms of human chorionic gonadotropin by home pregnancy test devices. Clin Chem 2001; 47: 2131-2136
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Whittington J, Fantz CR, Gronowski AM et al. The analytical specificity of human chorionic gonadotropin assays determined using WHO International Reference Reagents. Clin Chim Acta 2010; 411: 81-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Stewart BK, Nazar-Stewart V, Tiovola B. Biochemical discrimination of pathologic pregnancy from early, normal intrauterine gestation in symptomatic patients. Am J Clin Pathol 1995; 103: 386-390
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Zegers-Hochschild F, Altierl E, Fabres C et al. Predictive value of human chorionic gonadotrophin in the outcome of early pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization and spontaneous conception. Hum Rep 1994; 9: 1550-1555
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Barnhart KT, Sammel MD, Rinaudo PF et al. Symptomatic patients with an early viable intrauterine pregnancy: hCG curves redefined. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104: 50-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Norman RJ, Menabawey M, Lowings C et al. Relationship between blood and urinary concentrations of intact human chorionic gonadotropin and its free subunits in early pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 69: 590-593
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Johnson SR, Miro F, Barrett S et al. Levels of urinary human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) following conception and variability of menstrual cycle length in a cohort of women attempting to conceive. Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25: 741-748
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Larsen J, Buchanan P, Johnson S et al. Human chorionic gonadotropin as a measure of pregnancy duration. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2013; 123: 189-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Eskild A, Fedorcsak P, Mørkrid L et al. Maternal body mass index and serum concentrations of human chorionic gonadotropin in very early pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2012; 98: 905-910
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lenton EA, Landgren BM, Sexton L et al. Normal variation in the length of the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle: effect of chronological age. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984; 91: 681-684
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Creinin MD, Keverline S, Meyn LA. How regular is regular? An analysis of menstrual cycle regularity. Contraception 2004; 70: 289-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Geirsson RT, Busby-Earle RM. Certain dates may not provide a reliable estimate of gestational age. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 108-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Waller DK, Spears WD, Gu Y et al. Assessing number-specific error in the recall of onset of last menstrual period. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2000; 14: 262-267
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Haarburger D, Pillay TS. Historical perspectives in diagnostic clinical pathology: development of the pregnancy test. J Clin Pathol 2011; 64: 546-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wide L, Gemzell CA. An immunological pregnancy test. Acta Endocrinol (Copenh) 1960; 35: 261-267
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Scolaro KL, Braxton-Lloyd K, Helms KL. Devices for home evaluation of womenʼs health concerns. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008; 65: 299-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Johnson SR, Godbert S, Perry P et al. Accuracy of a home-based device for giving an early estimate of pregnancy duration compared with reference methods. Fertil Steril 2013; 100: 1635-1641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Johnson S, Shaw R, Parkinson P. Home pregnancy test compared to standard-of-care ultrasound dating in the assessment of pregnancy duration. Curr Med Res Opin 2011; 27: 393-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mustafa G, David RJ. Comparative accuracy of clinical estimate versus menstrual gestational age in computerized birth certificates. Public Health Rep 2001; 116: 15-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Johnson S, Godbert S. Comparison of home pregnancy test with weeks estimator and ultrasound crown rump measurement to predict delivery date. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (3 Suppl.) S330
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cole LA, Khanlian S, Sutton J et al. Accuracy of home pregnancy tests at the time of missed menses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190: 100-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bastian LA, Nanda K, Hasselblad V et al. Diagnostic efficiency of home pregnancy test kits: a meta-analysis. Arch Fam Med 1998; 7: 465-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Daviaud J, Fournet D, Ballonque C et al. Reliability and feasibility of home-use tests: laboratory validation and diagnostic evaluation by 638 volunteers. Clin Chem 1993; 39: 53-59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Wallace LS, Zite NB, Homewood VJ. Making sense of home pregnancy test instructions. J Womens Health 2009; 18: 363-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Tomlinson C, Marshall J, Ellis JE. Comparison of accuracy and certainty of results of six home pregnancy tests available over-the-counter. Curr Med Res Opin 2008; 24: 1645-1649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Pike J, Godbert S, Johnson S. Comparison of volunteersʼ experience of using, and accuracy of reading, different types of home pregnancy test formats. Expert Opin Med Diagn 2013; 7: 435-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Geirsson RT. Ultrasound instead of last menstrual period as the basis of gestational age assignment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1991; 1: 212-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Wilcox AJ, Baird DD, Weinberg CR. Time of implantation of the conceptus and loss of pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1796-1799
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Gronowski AM, Cervinski M, Stenman U et al. False-negative results in point-of-care qualitative human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) devices due to excess hCG-beta core fragment. Clin Chem 2009; 55: 1389-1394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Snyder JA, Haymond S, Parvin CA et al. Diagnostic considerations in the measurement of human chorionic gonadotropin in aging women. Clin Chem 2005; 51: 1830-1835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar