State of the art for measurement of urine albumin: comparison of routine measurement procedures to isotope dilution tandem mass spectrometry.

BACKGROUND: Urine albumin is the primary biomarker for detection and monitoring of kidney damage. Because fixed decision criteria are used to identify patients with increased values, we investigated if commonly used routine measurement procedures gave comparable results. METHODS: Results from 17 commercially available urine albumin measurement procedures were investigated vs an isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) procedure. Nonfrozen aliquots of freshly collected urine from 332 patients with chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension were distributed to manufacturers to perform urine albumin measurements according to the respective instructions for use for each procedure. Frozen aliquots were used for measurements by the IDMS procedure. An error model was used to determine imprecision and bias components. RESULTS: Median differences between the largest positive and negative biases vs IDMS were 45%, 37%, and 42% in the concentration intervals of 12-30 mg/L, 31-200 mg/L, and 201-1064 mg/L, respectively. Biases varied with concentration for most procedures and exceeded ± 10% over the concentration interval for 14 of 16 quantitative procedures. Mean biases ranged from -35% to 34% at 15 mg/L. Dilution of samples with high concentrations introduced bias for 4 procedures. The combined CV was >10% for 5 procedures. It was not possible to estimate total error due to dependence of bias on concentration. CVs for sample-specific influences were 0% to 15.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Bias was the dominant source of disagreement among routine measurement procedures. Consequently, standardization efforts will improve agreement among results. Variation of bias with concentration needs to be addressed by manufacturers.

Specificity characteristics of 7 commercial creatinine measurement procedures by enzymatic and Jaffe method principles.

BACKGROUND: Standardized calibration does not change a creatinine measurement procedure's susceptibility to potentially interfering substances. METHODS: We obtained individual residual serum or plasma samples (n = 365) from patients with 19 different disease categories associated with potentially interfering substances and from healthy controls. Additional sera at 0.9 mg/dL (80 µmol/L) and 3.8 mg/dL (336 µmol/L) creatinine were supplemented with acetoacetate, acetone, ascorbate, and pyruvate. We measured samples by 4 enzymatic and 3 Jaffe commercially available procedures and by a liquid chromatography/isotope dilution/mass spectrometry measurement procedure against which biases were determined. RESULTS: The number of instances when 3 or more results in a disease category had biases greater than the limits of acceptability was 28 of 57 (49%) for Jaffe and 14 of 76 (18%) for enzymatic procedures. For the aggregate group of 59 diabetes samples with increased ß-hydroxybutyrate, glucose, or glycosylated hemoglobin (Hb A(1c)), the enzymatic procedures had 10 biased results of 236 (4.2%) compared with 89 of 177 (50.3%) for the Jaffe procedures, and these interferences were highly procedure dependent. For supplemented sera, interferences were observed in 11 of 24 (46%) of groups for Jaffe and 8 of 32 (25%) of groups for enzymatic procedures and were different at low or high creatinine concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: There were differences in both magnitude and direction of bias among measurement procedures, whether enzymatic or Jaffe. The influence of interfering substances was less frequent with the enzymatic procedures, but no procedure was unaffected. The details of implementation of a method principle influenced its susceptibility to potential interfering substances.