Suppr超能文献

糖化白蛋白标准化在评估糖尿病患者时的局限性。

Limitations of glycated albumin standardization when applied to the assessment of diabetes patients.

机构信息

Department of Clinical Chemistry, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands.

European Reference Laboratory for Glycohemoglobin, Zwolle, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Clin Chem Lab Med. 2024 Jun 17;62(12):2526-2533. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2024-0591. Print 2024 Nov 26.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Glycated albumin (GA) has potential value in the management of people with diabetes; however, to draw meaningful conclusions between clinical studies it is important that the GA values are comparable. This study investigates the standardization of the Norudia Glycated Albumin and Lucica Glycated Albumin-L methods.

METHODS

The manufacturer reported imprecision was verified by performing CLSI-EP15-A3 protocol using manufacturer produced controls. The Japanese Clinical Chemistry Reference Material (JCCRM)611-1 was measured 20 times to evaluate the accuracy of both methods. GA was also measured in 1,167 patient samples and results were compared between the methods in mmol/mol and %.

RESULTS

Maximum CV for Lucica was ≤0.6 % and for Norudia ≤1.8 % for control material. Results in mmol/mol and % of the JCCRM611-1 were within the uncertainty of the assigned values for both methods. In patient samples the relative difference in mmol/mol between the two methods ranged from -10.4 % at a GA value of 183 mmol/mol to +8.7 % at a GA value of 538 mmol/mol. However, the relative difference expressed in percentage units ranged from of 0 % at a GA value of 9.9 % to +1.7 % at a GA value of 30 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The results in mmol/mol between the two methods for the patient samples were significantly different compared to the results in %. It is not clear why patient samples behave differently compared to JCCRM611-1 material. Valuable lessons can be learnt from comparing the standardization process of GA with that of HbA.

摘要

目的

糖化白蛋白(GA)在糖尿病患者的管理中有潜在的价值;然而,为了在临床研究之间得出有意义的结论,重要的是GA 值具有可比性。本研究调查了 Norudia 糖化白蛋白和 Lucica 糖化白蛋白-L 方法的标准化。

方法

通过使用制造商生产的控制品执行 CLSI-EP15-A3 方案来验证制造商报告的不精密度。使用两种方法测量 20 次日本临床化学参考材料(JCCRM)611-1,以评估两种方法的准确性。还在 1167 个患者样本中测量了 GA,并在 mmol/mol 和%之间比较了两种方法的结果。

结果

Lucica 的最大 CV 为 ≤0.6%,Norudia 的最大 CV 为 ≤1.8%,用于控制材料。JCCRM611-1 的结果在两种方法的 mmol/mol 和%中均在分配值的不确定度范围内。在患者样本中,两种方法之间的 mmol/mol 相对差异范围为 183 mmol/mol 时为-10.4%,GA 值为 538 mmol/mol 时为+8.7%。然而,以百分比单位表示的相对差异范围为 9.9%时为 0%,GA 值为 30%时为+1.7%。

结论

与%相比,两种方法在患者样本中的 mmol/mol 结果之间存在显著差异。目前尚不清楚为什么患者样本的行为与 JCCRM611-1 材料不同。可以从比较 GA 和 HbA 的标准化过程中吸取宝贵的经验教训。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验