将两种血清游离轻链检测法与肌酐正常和异常人群进行比较,显示出标准化的必要性。

IF 1.8 Q3 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-03 DOI:10.1093/jalm/jfae065
Mark Griffiths, Pow Lee Cheng, Xiao Yan Wang, Randal Schneider, Vathany Kulasingam
{"title":"将两种血清游离轻链检测法与肌酐正常和异常人群进行比较,显示出标准化的必要性。","authors":"Mark Griffiths, Pow Lee Cheng, Xiao Yan Wang, Randal Schneider, Vathany Kulasingam","doi":"10.1093/jalm/jfae065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare The Binding Site's Freelite on Optilite and Diazyme's Kappa/Lambda free light chains (K/L FLC) on Abbott Architect c8000 with healthy and renal insufficient populations and to evaluate their respective reference intervals for serum free light chains (sFLCs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two hundred sixty serum samples were measured for creatinine and sFLCs by both assays and a subset by immunofixation electrophoresis. Verification of manufacturer-defined reference intervals was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Kappa free light chains (KFLC) showed excellent correlation of 0.998 R2 with a slope of 0.73. For Lambda free light chains (LFLC), an acceptable correlation of 0.953 R2 was found with a slope of 1.50 as well as a skewness-based difference with a -12.70 intercept. Healthy estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60 reference interval verification of central 95% could not be confirmed for either Freelite or Diazyme although LFLC was much closer than KFLC for both assays with Freelite KFLC recovering only 37% of values within reference interval claims. The K/L FLC ratio did not meet 100% claim for both Freelite (91%) and Diazyme (95%) among those with eGFR ≥60. Samples with eGFR ≤59 had increasingly higher levels of KFLC and LFLC for both assays. When comparing worsening eGFR status, Freelite recovered increasingly higher ratios while Diazyme recovered increasingly lower ratios.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Healthy reference intervals could not be verified for either Freelite or Diazyme. Renal reference intervals for Freelite are currently warranted while they are not recommended for Diazyme. The differences between these 2 assays can be minimized by standardization efforts such as recalibration.</p>","PeriodicalId":46361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of 2 Serum Free Light Chain Assays with Creatinine Normal and Abnormal Populations Demonstrates the Need for Standardization.\",\"authors\":\"Mark Griffiths, Pow Lee Cheng, Xiao Yan Wang, Randal Schneider, Vathany Kulasingam\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jalm/jfae065\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare The Binding Site's Freelite on Optilite and Diazyme's Kappa/Lambda free light chains (K/L FLC) on Abbott Architect c8000 with healthy and renal insufficient populations and to evaluate their respective reference intervals for serum free light chains (sFLCs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two hundred sixty serum samples were measured for creatinine and sFLCs by both assays and a subset by immunofixation electrophoresis. Verification of manufacturer-defined reference intervals was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Kappa free light chains (KFLC) showed excellent correlation of 0.998 R2 with a slope of 0.73. For Lambda free light chains (LFLC), an acceptable correlation of 0.953 R2 was found with a slope of 1.50 as well as a skewness-based difference with a -12.70 intercept. Healthy estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60 reference interval verification of central 95% could not be confirmed for either Freelite or Diazyme although LFLC was much closer than KFLC for both assays with Freelite KFLC recovering only 37% of values within reference interval claims. The K/L FLC ratio did not meet 100% claim for both Freelite (91%) and Diazyme (95%) among those with eGFR ≥60. Samples with eGFR ≤59 had increasingly higher levels of KFLC and LFLC for both assays. When comparing worsening eGFR status, Freelite recovered increasingly higher ratios while Diazyme recovered increasingly lower ratios.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Healthy reference intervals could not be verified for either Freelite or Diazyme. Renal reference intervals for Freelite are currently warranted while they are not recommended for Diazyme. The differences between these 2 assays can be minimized by standardization efforts such as recalibration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae065\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae065","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究的目的是比较Optilite上The Binding Site的Freelite和雅培Architect c8000上Diazyme的Kappa/Lambda游离轻链(K/L FLC)对健康人群和肾功能不全人群的检测结果,并评估它们各自的血清游离轻链(sFLCs)参考区间:采用这两种检测方法对 2600 份血清样本进行肌酐和 sFLCs 检测,并对一部分样本进行免疫固定电泳检测。对制造商定义的参考区间进行了验证评估:结果:卡帕游离轻链(KFLC)显示出极好的相关性,R2为0.998,斜率为0.73。λ游离轻链(LFLC)的相关性为 0.953 R2,斜率为 1.50,基于偏度的差异截距为-12.70。Freelite和Diazyme的健康估计肾小球滤过率(eGFR)≥60参考区间验证的中心95%都无法确认,尽管这两种检测方法的LFLC比KFLC更接近,Freelite的KFLC只恢复了参考区间要求内37%的值。在eGFR≥60的样本中,Freelite(91%)和Diazyme(95%)的K/L FLC比值均未达到100%的要求。对于 eGFR ≤59 的样本,两种检测方法的 KFLC 和 LFLC 水平都越来越高。在比较恶化的 eGFR 状态时,Freelite 恢复的比率越来越高,而 Diazyme 恢复的比率越来越低:结论:Freelite和Diazyme都无法验证健康参考区间。结论:Freelite和Diazyme的健康参考区间都无法验证,目前需要Freelite的肾脏参考区间,而不建议使用Diazyme。这两种检测方法之间的差异可通过重新校准等标准化工作降至最低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of 2 Serum Free Light Chain Assays with Creatinine Normal and Abnormal Populations Demonstrates the Need for Standardization.

Background: The objective of this study was to compare The Binding Site's Freelite on Optilite and Diazyme's Kappa/Lambda free light chains (K/L FLC) on Abbott Architect c8000 with healthy and renal insufficient populations and to evaluate their respective reference intervals for serum free light chains (sFLCs).

Methods: Two hundred sixty serum samples were measured for creatinine and sFLCs by both assays and a subset by immunofixation electrophoresis. Verification of manufacturer-defined reference intervals was assessed.

Results: Kappa free light chains (KFLC) showed excellent correlation of 0.998 R2 with a slope of 0.73. For Lambda free light chains (LFLC), an acceptable correlation of 0.953 R2 was found with a slope of 1.50 as well as a skewness-based difference with a -12.70 intercept. Healthy estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60 reference interval verification of central 95% could not be confirmed for either Freelite or Diazyme although LFLC was much closer than KFLC for both assays with Freelite KFLC recovering only 37% of values within reference interval claims. The K/L FLC ratio did not meet 100% claim for both Freelite (91%) and Diazyme (95%) among those with eGFR ≥60. Samples with eGFR ≤59 had increasingly higher levels of KFLC and LFLC for both assays. When comparing worsening eGFR status, Freelite recovered increasingly higher ratios while Diazyme recovered increasingly lower ratios.

Conclusions: Healthy reference intervals could not be verified for either Freelite or Diazyme. Renal reference intervals for Freelite are currently warranted while they are not recommended for Diazyme. The differences between these 2 assays can be minimized by standardization efforts such as recalibration.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
137
期刊最新文献
SARS-CoV-2 Variants May Affect Saliva RT-PCR Assay Sensitivity. Quality Assurance for Multiplex Quantitative Clinical Chemistry Proteomics in Large Clinical Trials. Reference Values of Ceruloplasmin across the Adult Age Range in a Large Italian Healthy Population. Performance of Fentanyl Immunoassays in an ED Patient Population. A Pregnant Patient with a Positive Hepatitis C Antibody.
×
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