Clinical Chemistry and Hematology Laboratory, San Bortolo Hospital, Viale F. Rodolfi, 37, Vicenza, Italy.
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine and Laboratory Medicine, Fondazione CNR-Regione Toscana G. Monasterio, Via G. Moruzzi 1, Pisa, Italy.
Clin Chim Acta. 2015 Apr 15;444:106-12. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2015.01.028. Epub 2015 Feb 4.
Two new immunoassay methods for aldosterone assay using automated platforms recently became available into market. The main aim of the present study is to evaluate the analytical performance of these automated direct immunoassay methods, and also to compare their analytical characteristics to those of the most popular RIA and EIA methods used in an Italian External Quality Assessment (EQA) study.
In this study analytical performances of two aldosterone immunoassays using the IDS iSYS and DiaSorin LIAISON fully automated platforms, were evaluated. Results obtained with the two platforms in EDTA plasma samples of healthy subjects and patients were compared with those obtained by RIA and EIA methods used in the Italian EQA scheme, named Immunocheck study.
The two automated methods showed similar analytical performances: LoD 83.9 vs 92.2 pmol/L, LoQ 104.4 vs 111.1 pmol/L, respectively; moreover, the within-run and total imprecision values showed CV% between 8.1 and 14.1 for samples with 180.8 and 387.2 pmol/L concentration for both methods. There was a close linear regression between methods, however we found a significant proportional bias between LIAISON and iSYS methods. The EQA samples results obtained with these two methods were highly correlated to the consensus mean values.
Our data indicate that aldosterone values measured with the two automated methods actually show better reproducibility, shorter laboratory Turn Around Time (TAT) and require less "hands on labor" compared to RIA and EIA immunoassays. However, in our study significant bias was observed in result comparison, this means that translating aldosterone concentration in clinical information an appropriate definition of reference ranges for each method is mandatory.
两种新的用于醛固酮检测的自动化免疫分析方法最近已上市。本研究的主要目的是评估这些自动化直接免疫分析方法的分析性能,并将其分析特性与在意大利外部质量评估(EQA)研究中使用的最受欢迎的 RIA 和 EIA 方法进行比较。
本研究评估了两种使用 IDS iSYS 和 DiaSorin LIAISON 全自动平台的醛固酮免疫分析方法的分析性能。比较了两种平台在 EDTA 健康受试者和患者血浆样本中的结果与意大利 EQA 方案中使用的 RIA 和 EIA 方法(称为 Immunocheck 研究)的结果。
两种自动化方法的分析性能相似:LoD 分别为 83.9 和 92.2 pmol/L,LoQ 分别为 104.4 和 111.1 pmol/L;此外,两种方法的批内和总不精密度值在浓度为 180.8 和 387.2 pmol/L 的样本中分别为 8.1%至 14.1%。两种方法之间存在密切的线性回归,但我们发现 LIAISON 和 iSYS 方法之间存在显著的比例偏差。用这两种方法检测 EQA 样本的结果与共识平均值高度相关。
我们的数据表明,与 RIA 和 EIA 免疫分析相比,这两种自动化方法测量的醛固酮值实际上具有更好的可重复性、更短的实验室周转时间(TAT)且需要更少的“手工劳动”。然而,在我们的研究中,观察到结果比较存在显著偏差,这意味着需要为每种方法定义适当的参考范围,以便将醛固酮浓度转化为临床信息。