ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare different analytical methods that are currently in use in the Netherlands for the measurement of whole blood vitamin B6. METHODS: This method comparison study consisted of two separate parts. (1) Four laboratories participated in a pilot study in which the commercial Chromsystems and INstruchemie method, and a laboratory developed liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method and HPLC method were compared. Sixty-nine frozen whole blood samples and six lyophilized whole blood samples were used for comparison. (2) In the nationwide part of the study, 49 laboratories participated in the analysis of three identical sets of two whole blood samples of which one set was freshly analyzed, one set was analyzed after storage at -20 °C and one set was analyzed after lyophilization. RESULTS: In both parts of the study, the HPLC and LC-MS/MS methods showed equivalent results for all sample types tested. The Chromsystems method showed a positive bias of 45% (pilot study) and 30% (nationwide study) towards the LC-MS/MS method when fresh or frozen samples were used. The measurement of lyophilized samples showed no differences between the methods. The results of the INstruchemie method were inconclusive due to the low number of participants. CONCLUSIONS: The different analytical methods for measuring vitamin B6 produce different results when whole blood patient samples are measured. The recognition of a reference method or the development of suitable reference materials and quality control materials might serve as a first step towards improved standardization or harmonization of the whole blood vitamin B6 assay.
Subject(s)
Blood Chemical Analysis , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Vitamin B 6/blood , Chromatography, Liquid , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Pilot Projects , Tandem Mass SpectrometryABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Several investigators have reported discrepancies between the bromocresol-purple (BCP), bromocresol-green (BCG) and immunonephelometric (INP) assays in dialysis patients. This study compared the abovementioned assays and investigated whether hemodialysis itself or carbamylation of albumin is the cause for this discrepancy. METHODS: Samples obtained from hemodialysis patients were analyzed by BCP, BCG and INP. Furthermore, albumin was carbamylated in vitro using isocyanate. Isocyanate converts lysine to homocitrulline. RESULTS: No differences were observed between samples of the pre- and post-hemodialysis groups for BCP. In the control group, BCG averaged 6 g/L higher than INP. BCP did not statistically deviate from INP. In the dialysis group BCG averaged 5 g/L higher when compared to INP, whereas BCP averaged 2 g/L lower. BCP was affected by carbamylation of albumin. BCG and INP measurements were affected to a much lesser extent. Homocitrulline content of hydrolysates was increased in both the carbamylated albumin as well as in the dialysis population. CONCLUSION: In a hemodialysis population albumin concentrations are not consistently estimated by both BCG and BCP methods. Relative to INP measurements BCG overestimates the albumin concentration (4-10 g/L), whereas BCP leads to an underestimation (0-4 g/L). Carbamylation of albumin is the main attributor to the discrepancy found with BCP.
