Chan Bao-Yum, Tsang Hing-Man, Ng Candy Wai-Yan, Ling William Hin-Wing, Leung Daniel Cheuk-Wa, Lee Hencher Han-Chih, Mak Chloe Miu
Department of Pathology, Clinical Laboratory, North Lantau Hospital, Lantau, Hong Kong.
Department of Pathology, Chemical Pathology Laboratory, Princess Margaret Hospital, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
J Clin Lab Anal. 2019 Feb;33(2):e22683. doi: 10.1002/jcla.22683. Epub 2018 Oct 4.
To evaluate the analytical performance of five commercial acetaminophen assays and select the best method for routine use.
Imprecision, accuracy, linearity, and interferences of three enzymatic assays (Beckman Coulter AU Paracetamol, Abbott MULTIGENT Acetaminophen, and Sekisui Acetaminophen L3K) and two immunoassay-based assays (Beckman Coulter SYNCHRON ACTM (Acetaminophen) Reagent and Siemens SYVA Emit-tox Acetaminophen) were evaluated on a Beckman Coulter AU680 chemistry analyzer. Hook effect for immunoassay-based assays and recovery in ultrafiltrate for enzymatic methods were studied.
Within-run and between-run imprecision of the enzymatic assays ranged 0.26%-0.82% and 0.53%-2.86%, respectively, while that for the immunoassay-based methods ranged 0.96%-6.34% and 1.50%-11.33%, respectively. All assays except the SYNCHRON assay fell within the program analytical performance specifications (±20 µmol/L or 10%) for external quality assurance (EQA) samples, with the highest positive bias (31.7%) observed in the SYNCHRON assay. Icteric interference was demonstrated most significantly in the Abbott assay (up to 88 μmol/L positive bias in blank serum). The lipemic interference on the SYNCHRON was significant (up to 110% positive bias at level of 100 μmol/L). The immunoassay-based methods were less susceptible to hemolytic interference, while the Abbott and AU assays were more susceptible to N-acetylcysteine interference. Both immunoassay-based methods showed no hook effect up to 18 000 μmol/L. Ultrafiltration recoveries for enzymatic methods were satisfactory, ranging from 80.0% ± 5.1% to 89.5% ± 3.0%.
Proportional bias was observed in the SYNCHRON assay, while the Siemens and Sekisui assays were minimally affected by bilirubin interferences.
评估五种市售对乙酰氨基酚检测方法的分析性能,并选择最佳的常规使用方法。
在贝克曼库尔特AU680化学分析仪上评估三种酶促检测方法(贝克曼库尔特AU对乙酰氨基酚检测法、雅培MULTIGENT对乙酰氨基酚检测法和积水对乙酰氨基酚L3K检测法)以及两种基于免疫分析的检测方法(贝克曼库尔特SYNCHRON ACTM(对乙酰氨基酚)试剂和西门子SYVA Emit-tox对乙酰氨基酚检测法)的不精密度、准确度、线性和干扰情况。研究了基于免疫分析的检测方法的钩状效应以及酶促方法在超滤液中的回收率。
酶促检测方法的批内和批间不精密度分别为0.26% - 0.82%和0.53% - 2.86%,而基于免疫分析的方法分别为0.96% - 6.34%和1.50% - 11.33%。除SYNCHRON检测法外,所有检测方法在外部质量保证(EQA)样本的程序分析性能规格(±20 μmol/L或10%)范围内,SYNCHRON检测法观察到的最大正偏差为31.7%。黄疸干扰在雅培检测法中表现最为显著(空白血清中高达88 μmol/L的正偏差)。SYNCHRON检测法上的脂血干扰显著(在100 μmol/L水平时高达110%的正偏差)。基于免疫分析的方法对溶血干扰较不敏感,而雅培和AU检测法对N - 乙酰半胱氨酸干扰更敏感。两种基于免疫分析的方法在高达18000 μmol/L时均未显示钩状效应。酶促方法的超滤回收率令人满意,范围为80.0% ± 5.1%至89.5% ± 3.0%。
SYNCHRON检测法中观察到比例偏差,而西门子和积水检测法受胆红素干扰的影响最小。