在临床环境中从一种脂蛋白(a)检测方法过渡到另一种检测方法的实际影响

IF 4.3 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS American journal of preventive cardiology Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ajpc.2024.100726
{"title":"在临床环境中从一种脂蛋白(a)检测方法过渡到另一种检测方法的实际影响","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ajpc.2024.100726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and aims</h3><p>Different lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] assays may affect risk stratification of individuals and thus clinical decision-making. We aimed to investigate how transitioning between Lp(a) assays at a large central laboratory affected the proportion of individuals with Lp(a) result above clinical thresholds.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We studied nationwide clinical laboratory data including 185,493 unique individuals (47.7 % women) aged 18-50 years with 272,463 Lp(a) measurements using Roche (2000-2009) and Siemens Lp(a) assay (2009-2019).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>While the majority of individuals (66-75 %) had low levels of Lp(a) (&lt;30 mg/dL) independent of the assay used, the Roche assay detected 20 % more individuals with Lp(a) &gt;50 mg/dL, 40 % more individuals with Lp(a) &gt;100 mg/dL and 80 % more individuals with Lp(a) &gt; 180 mg/dL than the currently used Siemens assay, likely due to calibration differences.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Transitioning from one Lp(a) immunoassay to another had significant impact on Lp(a) results, particularly in individuals approaching clinically relevant Lp(a) thresholds.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72173,"journal":{"name":"American journal of preventive cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666667724000941/pdfft?md5=b4e82c85b1837ad5e8bce9d75dcc8758&pid=1-s2.0-S2666667724000941-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-world impact of transitioning from one lipoprotein(a) assay to another in a clinical setting\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajpc.2024.100726\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and aims</h3><p>Different lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] assays may affect risk stratification of individuals and thus clinical decision-making. We aimed to investigate how transitioning between Lp(a) assays at a large central laboratory affected the proportion of individuals with Lp(a) result above clinical thresholds.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We studied nationwide clinical laboratory data including 185,493 unique individuals (47.7 % women) aged 18-50 years with 272,463 Lp(a) measurements using Roche (2000-2009) and Siemens Lp(a) assay (2009-2019).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>While the majority of individuals (66-75 %) had low levels of Lp(a) (&lt;30 mg/dL) independent of the assay used, the Roche assay detected 20 % more individuals with Lp(a) &gt;50 mg/dL, 40 % more individuals with Lp(a) &gt;100 mg/dL and 80 % more individuals with Lp(a) &gt; 180 mg/dL than the currently used Siemens assay, likely due to calibration differences.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Transitioning from one Lp(a) immunoassay to another had significant impact on Lp(a) results, particularly in individuals approaching clinically relevant Lp(a) thresholds.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72173,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of preventive cardiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666667724000941/pdfft?md5=b4e82c85b1837ad5e8bce9d75dcc8758&pid=1-s2.0-S2666667724000941-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of preventive cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666667724000941\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of preventive cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666667724000941","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的不同的脂蛋白(a)[Lp(a)]检测方法可能会影响个人的风险分层,从而影响临床决策。方法我们研究了全国范围内的临床实验室数据,其中包括 185,493 名年龄在 18-50 岁之间的独特个体(47.7% 为女性),使用罗氏(2000-2009 年)和西门子(2009-2019 年)脂蛋白(a)测定法进行了 272,463 次脂蛋白(a)测量。结果虽然大多数人(66-75%)的脂蛋白(a)水平较低(30 毫克/分升),与所使用的检测方法无关,但与目前使用的西门子检测方法相比,罗氏检测方法检测出的脂蛋白(a)为 50 毫克/分升的人多 20%,脂蛋白(a)为 100 毫克/分升的人多 40%,脂蛋白(a)为 180 毫克/分升的人多 80%,这可能是由于校准差异造成的。结论从一种脂蛋白(a)免疫测定方法过渡到另一种方法会对脂蛋白(a)结果产生重大影响,尤其是在接近临床相关脂蛋白(a)阈值的个体中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Real-world impact of transitioning from one lipoprotein(a) assay to another in a clinical setting

Background and aims

Different lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] assays may affect risk stratification of individuals and thus clinical decision-making. We aimed to investigate how transitioning between Lp(a) assays at a large central laboratory affected the proportion of individuals with Lp(a) result above clinical thresholds.

Methods

We studied nationwide clinical laboratory data including 185,493 unique individuals (47.7 % women) aged 18-50 years with 272,463 Lp(a) measurements using Roche (2000-2009) and Siemens Lp(a) assay (2009-2019).

Results

While the majority of individuals (66-75 %) had low levels of Lp(a) (<30 mg/dL) independent of the assay used, the Roche assay detected 20 % more individuals with Lp(a) >50 mg/dL, 40 % more individuals with Lp(a) >100 mg/dL and 80 % more individuals with Lp(a) > 180 mg/dL than the currently used Siemens assay, likely due to calibration differences.

Conclusion

Transitioning from one Lp(a) immunoassay to another had significant impact on Lp(a) results, particularly in individuals approaching clinically relevant Lp(a) thresholds.

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
American journal of preventive cardiology
American journal of preventive cardiology Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
76 days
期刊最新文献
Optimizing cardiometabolic risk in people living with human immunodeficiency virus: A deep dive into an important risk enhancer Lipoprotein (a) testing patterns among subjects with a measured lipid panel: The Mayo Clinic experience Neutrophil-to-High-Density Lipoprotein Ratio (NHR) and Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) as prognostic biomarkers for incident cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: A comparison study Genetic risk score for coronary artery calcification and its predictive ability for coronary artery disease Sex, ethnicity and language differences in statin prescribing in community health center patients
×
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