Joly Dominique, Drueke Tilman B, Alberti Corinne, Houillier Pascal, Lawson-Body Ethel, Martin Kevin J, Massart Catherine, Moe Sharon M, Monge Marie, Souberbielle Jean-Claude
Service de Néphrologie, Laboratoire d'Explorations Fonctionnelles and Inserm Unit 845, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Descartes, Paris, France.
Am J Kidney Dis. 2008 Jun;51(6):987-95. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.01.017. Epub 2008 Apr 8.
Previous reports show that parathyroid hormone (PTH) concentrations may vary widely depending on the assay used to assess PTH. In this cross-sectional study, we aim to determine the usefulness of standardizing blood handling for optimal interpretation of PTH in patients with chronic kidney disease.
Diagnostic test study.
SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Predialysis blood was sampled in 34 long-term hemodialysis patients at a single academic medical center.
PTH was measured by using 6 different automated second-generation assays (Elecsys, Advia Centaur, LIAISON, Immulite, Architect, and Access assays), 3 blood specimen types (serum, EDTA plasma, and citrate plasma), and 2 consecutive days of measurement (after thawing and 18 hours later with samples having been let at room temperature).
None.
A mixed statistical analysis model showed that the nature of the assay (P < 0.001) and nature of the blood sample (P < 0.001) significantly influenced variability in PTH concentrations, whereas day of measurement (day 1 or 2) did not (P = 0.5). Most PTH variability was caused by observations (96.8%), then manufacturer's kit (2.5%), and last, specimen type (0.7%). PTH concentrations measured in citrate plasma were lower with every assay method used than those observed in serum or EDTA plasma. The interaction between manufacturer and specimen type was of moderate statistical significance (P = 0.04). To evaluate the potential clinical consequence of PTH measure variability, we classified patients according to Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative cutoff values (PTH < 150 pg/mL; PTH, 150 to 300 pg/mL; and PTH > 300 pg/mL). Overall, statistical classification agreement was moderate to high for comparison between assays and high to very high between different blood samples and between days of measurement. However, we found that up to 11 of 34 patients were classified in different categories with some assays (LIAISON versus Architect) and up to 7 of 34 in different categories with different blood specimen type (citrate plasma versus serum [corrected] in LIAISON assay).
This is a cross-sectional study that used single lots of reagents. There currently is no reference method for the measurement of PTH and no recombinant PTH standard for PTH assay.
PTH variability caused by the nature of the assay and/or blood specimen type is large enough to potentially influence clinical decision making. A specified collection method therefore should be used for PTH measurements. In routine practice, we recommend serum PTH over EDTA or citrate plasma.
既往报告显示,甲状旁腺激素(PTH)浓度可能因用于评估PTH的检测方法不同而有很大差异。在这项横断面研究中,我们旨在确定规范血液处理对于优化解读慢性肾脏病患者PTH的有用性。
诊断试验研究。
在一家学术医疗中心,对34例长期血液透析患者的透析前血液进行采样。
使用6种不同的第二代自动化检测方法(罗氏电化学发光免疫分析仪、西门子ADVIA Centaur免疫分析仪、索灵LIAISON免疫分析仪、西门子Immulite免疫分析仪、雅培Architect免疫分析仪和贝克曼库尔特Access免疫分析仪)、3种血液标本类型(血清、乙二胺四乙酸血浆和枸橼酸盐血浆)以及连续2天进行检测(解冻后以及样本在室温放置18小时后)来测定PTH。
无。
混合统计分析模型显示,检测方法的性质(P<0.001)和血液样本的性质(P<0.001)对PTH浓度的变异性有显著影响,而检测日期(第1天或第2天)则无影响(P=0.5)。大多数PTH变异性是由观察因素引起的(96.8%),其次是制造商的试剂盒(2.5%),最后是标本类型(0.7%)。使用的每种检测方法所测得的枸橼酸盐血浆中的PTH浓度均低于血清或乙二胺四乙酸血浆中的浓度。制造商与标本类型之间的相互作用具有中等统计学意义(P=0.04)。为评估PTH检测变异性的潜在临床后果,我们根据肾脏病预后质量倡议的临界值(PTH<150 pg/mL;PTH为150至300 pg/mL;PTH>300 pg/mL)对患者进行分类。总体而言,检测方法之间比较的统计分类一致性为中等至高,不同血液样本之间以及检测日期之间的一致性为高至非常高。然而,我们发现,在34例患者中,多达11例患者使用某些检测方法(LIAISON与Architect)被分类到不同类别,在34例患者中,多达7例患者因不同血液标本类型(LIAISON检测中的枸橼酸盐血浆与血清[校正后])被分类到不同类别。
这是一项使用单批试剂的横断面研究。目前尚无测量PTH的参考方法,也没有用于PTH检测的重组PTH标准品。
检测方法的性质和/或血液标本类型引起的PTH变异性大到足以潜在影响临床决策。因此,PTH检测应采用特定的采集方法。在常规实践中,我们推荐使用血清PTH而非乙二胺四乙酸或枸橼酸盐血浆。