ABSTRACT
Objectives: Homocysteine is an intermediary amino acid formed in methionine metabolism, with elevated total homocysteine (tHCY) being a biomarker of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. We evaluated the Abbott ARCHITECT tHCY immunoassay, compared it with the current established JEOL ion exchange chromatography (IEC) method and evaluated its clinical utility. Design and methods: Following immunoassay method verification, plasma samples of 91 patients were analysed for tHCY using immunoassay and IEC. Results: For the Abbott immunoassay, accuracy was assessed, with UK NEQAS EQA specimens, by the correlation of our Abbott immunoassay measurements to the Abbott ARCHITECT immunoassay mean (bias = 1.6%), and to the overall immunoassay mean (bias = 2.0%). The total imprecision was 2.7% (11.00 µmol/L), 2.4% (16.80 µmol/L) and 2.8% (24.30 µmol/L) respectively. Bias in linearity assessment was 0.12%-2.58%. The inter-method correlation was strong in Passing-Bablok regression: immunoassay = IEC x0.857 + 2.445 (95% CI: slope = [0.742,0.947], intercept = [1.340,3.582]), with Spearman correlation = 0.803 (p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman plot showed an average difference of -0.284 µmol/L (95% CI: [-1.043,0.474]) with limits of agreement (mean ± 1.96SD) from -7.425 µmol/L to 6.857 µmol/L.No significant difference in tHCY was found using both methods in patients with cerebrovascular diseases and cardiovascular diseases. Most tHCY measurements were within the reference ranges of both methods. All homocystinuria patients had tHCY values above the reference ranges of both methods. Conclusions: The immunoassay demonstrated robust performance in its verification and showed good comparability with the IEC but with some biases so caution is needed if both are used interchangeably. The immunoassay offers an automated alternative to IEC in the assessment of hyperhomocysteinaemia.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: When laboratory Reference Ranges (RR) do not reflect analytical methodology, result interpretation can cause misclassification of patients and inappropriate management. This can be mitigated by determining and implementing method-specific RRs, which was the main objective of this study. DESIGN AND METHODS: Serum was obtained from healthy volunteers (Male + Female, n > 120) attending hospital health-check sessions during June and July 2011. Pseudo-anonymised aliquots were stored (at - 70 °C) prior t° analysis on Abbott ARCHITECT c16000 chemistry and i2000SR immunoassay analysers. Data were stratified by gender where appropriate. Outliers were excluded statistically (Tukey method) to generate non-parametric RRs (2.5th + 97.5th percentiles). RRs were compared to those quoted by Abbott and UK Pathology Harmony (PH) where possible. For 7 selected tests, RRs were verified using a data mining approach. RESULTS: For chemistry tests (n = 23), Upper or Lower Reference Limits (LRL or URL) were > 20% different from Abbott ranges in 25% of tests (11% from PH ranges) but in 38% for immunoassay tests (n = 13). RRs (mmol/L) for sodium (138-144), potassium (3.8-4.9) and chloride (102-110) were considerably narrower than PH ranges (133-146, 3.5-5.0 and 95-108, respectively). The gender difference for ferritin (M: 29-441, F: 8-193 ng/mL) was more pronounced than reported by Abbott (M: 22-275, F: 5-204 ng/mL). Verification studies showed good agreement for chemistry tests (mean [SD] difference = 0.4% [1.2%]) but less so for immunoassay tests (27% [29%]), particularly for TSH (LRL). CONCLUSION: Where resource permits, we advocate using method-specific RRs in preference to other sources, particularly where method bias and lack of standardisation limits RR transferability and harmonisation.
