Hb Tacoma by seven HbA1c methods - one with significant interference.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation Pub Date : 2024-10-27 DOI:10.1080/00365513.2024.2417383
Anni Mäenpää, Moona Kangastie, Päivikki Kangastupa
{"title":"Hb Tacoma by seven HbA1c methods - one with significant interference.","authors":"Anni Mäenpää, Moona Kangastie, Päivikki Kangastupa","doi":"10.1080/00365513.2024.2417383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hemoglobin Tacoma is known to potentially interfere HbA1c assays. The variant is common in Finland with prevalence of up to 2% regionally and cases are also reported in areas that have attracted Finnish immigrants, especially in Sweden and North America. Here, we investigated the effect of Hb Tacoma on seven HbA1c methods. 20 non-variant and 20 Hb Tacoma samples were measured with Tina-quant Gen. 3 (immunoassay, considered as reference) and the following point of care instruments: Afinion 2, HbA1c 501 (both utilizing boronate affinity), QuikRead go, cobas b 101, DCA Atellica, and Standard F (all immunoassays). Repeatability was also assessed by measuring both non-variant and Hb Tacoma samples five times each at two different levels. For non-variant samples, the mean relative bias with all methods was < ±4%, whereas for Hb Tacoma samples Standard F had 38% mean relative bias. In absolute bias, the difference was 17 mmol/mol on average and constant through the measured range. For other methods the mean relative bias for Hb Tacoma samples was < ±6%. The repeatability with all methods was similar for non-variant and Hb Tacoma samples and at highest 4.1% (mean CV% of two levels). The observed interference by Standard F is likely due to two-antibody assay design as Hb Tacoma has been shown to result in conformational change. This interference is clinically significant and highlight the need for better controlling and better understanding hemoglobin variants in HbA1c testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":21474,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2024.2417383","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Hemoglobin Tacoma is known to potentially interfere HbA1c assays. The variant is common in Finland with prevalence of up to 2% regionally and cases are also reported in areas that have attracted Finnish immigrants, especially in Sweden and North America. Here, we investigated the effect of Hb Tacoma on seven HbA1c methods. 20 non-variant and 20 Hb Tacoma samples were measured with Tina-quant Gen. 3 (immunoassay, considered as reference) and the following point of care instruments: Afinion 2, HbA1c 501 (both utilizing boronate affinity), QuikRead go, cobas b 101, DCA Atellica, and Standard F (all immunoassays). Repeatability was also assessed by measuring both non-variant and Hb Tacoma samples five times each at two different levels. For non-variant samples, the mean relative bias with all methods was < ±4%, whereas for Hb Tacoma samples Standard F had 38% mean relative bias. In absolute bias, the difference was 17 mmol/mol on average and constant through the measured range. For other methods the mean relative bias for Hb Tacoma samples was < ±6%. The repeatability with all methods was similar for non-variant and Hb Tacoma samples and at highest 4.1% (mean CV% of two levels). The observed interference by Standard F is likely due to two-antibody assay design as Hb Tacoma has been shown to result in conformational change. This interference is clinically significant and highlight the need for better controlling and better understanding hemoglobin variants in HbA1c testing.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用七种 HbA1c 方法检测血红蛋白塔科马--其中一种干扰很大。
众所周知,血红蛋白塔科马可能会干扰 HbA1c 检测。该变异体在芬兰很常见,地区流行率高达 2%,在吸引芬兰移民的地区,尤其是瑞典和北美,也有相关病例报道。在这里,我们研究了 Hb Tacoma 对七种 HbA1c 方法的影响。20 份非变异样本和 20 份 Hb Tacoma 样本是用 Tina-quant Gen:Afinion 2、HbA1c 501(均采用硼酸盐亲和法)、QuikRead go、cobas b 101、DCA Atellica 和 Standard F(均为免疫测定法)。重复性也是通过测量非变异样本和 Hb Tacoma 样本进行评估的,每种样本在两种不同水平下各测量五次。对于非变异样本,所有方法的平均相对偏差为
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
85
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation is an international scientific journal covering clinically oriented biochemical and physiological research. Since the launch of the journal in 1949, it has been a forum for international laboratory medicine, closely related to, and edited by, The Scandinavian Society for Clinical Chemistry. The journal contains peer-reviewed articles, editorials, invited reviews, and short technical notes, as well as several supplements each year. Supplements consist of monographs, and symposium and congress reports covering subjects within clinical chemistry and clinical physiology.
期刊最新文献
Significance of myeloperoxidase, pentraxin-3 and soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor determination in patients with moderate carotid artery stenosis. Reliability of albumin bromocresol green colorimetric method and clinical impact. Hb Tacoma by seven HbA1c methods - one with significant interference. A retrospective study on biotinidase deficiency: analysis of the Eastern Anatolia region patient cohort. The eGFRcystatin C/eGFRcreatinine-ratio is associated with maternal morbidity in hypertensive disorders in pregnancy and may indicate optimal timing of delivery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1