RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Measurement of urine albumin is critical for diagnosis, risk classification, and monitoring of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Guidelines recommend clinical decision cutoffs for the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) of 30 and 300â mg/g (3 and 30â mg/mmol). However, differences among manufacturers' routine urine albumin measurement procedures have been found to exceed 40%, suggesting CKD diagnosis and risk classification may vary depending upon the specific measurement procedure implemented in the laboratory. CONTENT: This review discusses urine albumin pathophysiology and clinical practice guideline recommendations for CKD. The review also provides recommendations for urine specimen collection and storage, and results reporting for the ACR. Recent advances in measurement techniques and development of reference systems intended to facilitate standardization of urine albumin measurements are reviewed. SUMMARY: Urine albumin is an important measurement procedure used for diagnosis, risk classification, and management of CKD. Urine albumin results should be reported as the ACR using quantitative measurement procedures. Random urine collections used for albuminuria screening should be followed by confirmation with first morning void collections to reduce variation and increase diagnostic accuracy for urine albumin measurement. Most measurement procedures utilize immunoturbidimetric or immunonephelometric techniques. However, results vary significantly among measurement procedures, potentially resulting in differences in classification or risk assessment for CKD. The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and other laboratories are developing reference systems, including liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry candidate reference measurement procedures and reference materials, to enable standardization of routine measurement procedures.
Asunto(s)
Insuficiencia Renal Crónica , Urinálisis , Humanos , Creatinina/orina , Albuminuria/orina , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica/diagnóstico , Albúminas/análisisRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Measurements of serum and plasma albumin are widely used in medicine, including as indicators of quality of patient care in renal dialysis centers. METHODS: Pools were prepared from residual patient serum (n = 50) and heparin plasma (n = 48) from patients without renal disease, and serum from patients with kidney failure before hemodialysis (n = 53). Albumin was measured in all samples and in ERM-DA470k/IFCC reference material (RM) by 3 immunochemical, 9 bromcresol green (BCG), and 12 bromcresol purple (BCP) methods. RESULTS: Two of 3 immunochemical procedures, 5 of 9 BCG, and 10 of 12 BCP methods recovered the RM value within its uncertainty. One immunochemical and 3 BCG methods were biased vs the RM value. Random error components were small for all measurement procedures. The Tina-quant immunochemical method was chosen as the reference measurement procedure based on recovery and results of error analyses. Mean biases for BCG vs Tina-quant were 1.5% to 13.9% and were larger at lower albumin concentrations. BCP methods' mean biases were -5.4% to 1.2% irrespective of albumin concentration. Biases for plasma samples were generally higher than for serum samples for all method types. For most measurement procedures, biases were lower for serum from patients on hemodialysis vs patients without kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences among immunochemical, BCG, and BCP methods compromise interpretation of serum albumin results. Guidelines and calculations for clinical management of kidney and other diseases must consider the method used for albumin measurement until harmonization can be achieved.
Asunto(s)
Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Enfermedades Renales/sangre , Albúmina Sérica/análisis , Humanos , Inmunoquímica , Estándares de Referencia , Diálisis Renal/normasRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: We used a difference in bias approach to evaluate the commutability of 4 frozen serum pools for 8 direct methods for measurement of HDL and LDL cholesterol (HDLC and LDLC). METHODS: Freshly collected nonfrozen sera from 138 diseased and 37 nondiseased patients and 4 frozen pools from the CDC Lipid Standardization Program were measured by direct methods and by the beta-quantification reference measurement procedure of the CDC. We used an error components model to estimate the difference in the bias component of error plus its uncertainty for frozen pools vs patient samples between the direct method and the reference procedure. Frozen pools with bias differences less than a critical value determined by either medical requirements for bias or the random error components of the measurement procedures were considered commutable. RESULTS: On the basis of medical requirement criteria, 1 of the 4 frozen pools was commutable for most of the HDLC methods for both diseased and nondiseased patients, and none was commutable for LDLC methods. On the basis of random error criteria, all of the frozen pools were generally commutable for all of the HDLC methods for both diseased and nondiseased patients, and 1 of the 4 frozen pools was generally commutable for most of the LDLC methods for both diseased and nondiseased patients. CONCLUSIONS: Commutability was assessed as the closeness of agreement of the difference in bias between a reference material and a set of patient samples. Criteria for commutability could be based on fixed medical requirements for bias or on random error components.
Asunto(s)
Análisis Químico de la Sangre/métodos , Análisis Químico de la Sangre/normas , HDL-Colesterol/sangre , LDL-Colesterol/sangre , Humanos , Estándares de ReferenciaAsunto(s)
Biomarcadores , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica/diagnóstico , Albuminuria , Biomarcadores/sangre , Biomarcadores/orina , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico/métodos , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico/normas , Creatinina/sangre , Cistatina C/sangre , Complicaciones de la Diabetes , Tasa de Filtración Glomerular , Humanos , Hipertensión/complicaciones , Pruebas de Función Renal , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Factores de Riesgo , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Albúmina Sérica/análisis , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Humanos , Técnicas de Dilución del Indicador , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oligopéptidos/análisis , Albúmina Sérica/química , Espectrometría de Masas en Tándem/métodos , Urinálisis/métodos , Urinálisis/normas , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
A limited number of small studies have examined the vitamin D status of pediatric oncology patients, and the results indicate an increased prevalence of hypovitaminosis. We conducted a cross-sectional study with the primary aim of describing the vitamin D status of our pediatric cancer patients and any associations with demographic characteristics. Our secondary aim was to compare this prevalence to that of a healthy population. We collected data on children seen in our clinic and determined the overall prevalence of hypovitaminosis. We then compared this prevalence to that of healthy populations described in the literature. The prevalence of hypovitaminosis in our study population was 72%. Forty-three percent of our patients were considered deficient with 8% being severely deficient. Our analysis revealed a significant association between the outcome and age in that patients 6 years and above were more likely to have hypovitaminosis after adjustment for other characteristics (AOR = 3.23; 95% CI, 1.11-9.40). When compared with a healthy pediatric population, our patients had a significantly higher prevalence of hypovitaminosis (P-value = 0.003). Vitamin D deficiency is very common in children with cancer, representing a subpopulation of high-risk patients that could benefit most from early detection and supplementation.
Asunto(s)
Suplementos Dietéticos , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/complicaciones , Neoplasias/complicaciones , Deficiencia de Vitamina D/etiología , Vitamina D/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Niño , Preescolar , Cromatografía Liquida , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Masculino , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/metabolismo , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Neoplasias/metabolismo , Prevalencia , Pronóstico , Estaciones del Año , Espectrometría de Masas en Tándem , Virginia/epidemiología , Deficiencia de Vitamina D/epidemiología , Deficiencia de Vitamina D/prevención & controlRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Increased urinary excretion of albumin reflects kidney damage and is a recognized risk factor for progression of renal and cardiovascular disease. Considerable inter-method differences have been reported for both albumin and creatinine measurement results, and therefore the albumin-to-creatinine ratio. Measurement accuracy is unknown and there are no independent reference measurement procedures for albumin and no reference materials for either measurand in urine. METHODS: The National Kidney Disease Education Program (NKDEP) Laboratory Working Group and the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) have initiated joint projects to facilitate standardization of urinary albumin and creatinine measurement. RESULTS: A candidate LC-MS/MS reference measurement procedure for urinary albumin and candidate reference materials for urinary albumin and creatinine has been developed. The status of validations of these reference system components is reported. CONCLUSIONS: The development of certified reference materials and reference measurement procedures for urinary albumin will enable standardization of this important measurand.
Asunto(s)
Albúminas/normas , Pruebas de Química Clínica/normas , Creatinina/normas , Laboratorios/normas , Albúminas/análisis , Cromatografía Liquida/normas , Creatinina/orina , Humanos , Estándares de Referencia , Espectrometría de Masas en Tándem/normasRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Bone health supplements containing strontium are available without prescription, however, the effects of strontium interference on clinical laboratory calcium measurement procedures are unknown. METHODS: To evaluate strontium interference on total calcium measurements, plasma pools with exogenously added strontium were measured by 3 total calcium measurement procedures. For ionized calcium measurements, whole blood pools prepared with exogenously added strontium were measured by 2 ionized calcium measurement procedures. An inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry assay (ICP-MS) was validated for research measurements of strontium content in commercially available supplements. RESULTS: Exogenous strontium addition to plasma caused positive bias for total calcium measurements. Strontium concentrations of 1.0 mg/dL (0.114 mmol/L), 2.5 mg/dL (0.284 mmol/L), and 5.0 mg/Dl (0.568 mmol/L) resulted in mean biases of 1.9% to 3.5%, 4.9% to 9.0%, and 10.8% to 19.2%, respectively, for total calcium measurement procedures. Biases for ionized calcium measurements were less than 4.5% for a strontium concentration of 5.0 mg/dL (0.568 mmol/L). An in-house-developed ICP-MS assay for strontium in commercially available supplements exhibited within-laboratory and within-run coefficients of variation of less than 3%, and a linear response was obtained over the assay analytical measurement range of 10 to 100 000 ng/mL (0.0001 to 1.141 mmol/L). Strontium recovery for the ICP-MS assay was 97.1% to 105.3%. The largest amount of strontium measured in dietary supplements was 395 mg in a 1054 mg tablet. CONCLUSIONS: Some dietary supplements contain larger amounts of strontium than indicated on the product label. High concentrations of strontium may cause significant interference for total calcium measurement procedures, but ionized calcium measurement procedures are not significantly affected.
Asunto(s)
Calcio , Suplementos Dietéticos , Humanos , Bioensayo , Correlación de Datos , EstroncioRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Creatinina/sangre , Biomarcadores/sangre , Calibración , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/sangre , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Diabetes Mellitus/sangre , Humanos , Enfermedades Renales/sangre , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: We conducted a pilot project to test the hypothesis that decreasing insulin concentrations with diazoxide would affect parameters of vitamin D in obese women with and without polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight obese women with PCOS and nine matched controls participated in the study. Diazoxide was administered orally 100 mg three times daily for 10 days, and parameters of vitamin D were measured at baseline and end-of-study. RESULTS: At baseline, women with polycystic ovary syndrome had significantly lower serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels than controls. After treatment with diazoxide, there were no significant changes in vitamin D parameters when PCOS and control women were evaluated separately. Diazoxide exhibited differential effects on 25(OH)D concentrations in PCOS as compared with normal women (P for interaction=0.045), and serum 25(OH)D levels converged after diazoxide treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Obese women with PCOS had significantly lower serum 25(OH)D levels at baseline than age- and body mass index-matched controls. Short-term administration with diazoxide seemed to have differential effects on 25(OH)D levels in PCOS as compared with control women. Further studies are necessary to confirm this finding.
Asunto(s)
Diazóxido/farmacología , Insulina/sangre , Obesidad/epidemiología , Síndrome del Ovario Poliquístico/epidemiología , Vitamina D/sangre , Administración Oral , Adulto , Andrógenos/sangre , Glucemia/metabolismo , Peso Corporal/efectos de los fármacos , Comorbilidad , Diazóxido/administración & dosificación , Relación Dosis-Respuesta a Droga , Femenino , Humanos , Hiperinsulinismo/sangre , Obesidad/sangre , Proyectos Piloto , Síndrome del Ovario Poliquístico/sangre , Deficiencia de Vitamina D/sangreRESUMEN
We have developed a complete system for the isotopic labeling, fractionation, and automated quantification of differentially expressed peptides that significantly facilitates candidate biomarker discovery. We describe a new stable mass tagging reagent pair, (12)C(6)- and (13)C(6)-phenyl isocyanate (PIC), that offers significant advantages over currently available tags. Peptides are labeled predominantly at their amino termini and exhibit elution profiles that are independent of label isotope. Importantly, PIC-labeled peptides have unique neutral-mass losses upon CID fragmentation that enable charge state and label isotope identification and, thereby, decouple the sequence identification from the quantification of candidate biomarkers. To exploit these properties, we have coupled peptide fractionation protocols with a Thermo LTQ-XL LC-MS(2) data acquisition strategy and a suite of automated spectrum analysis software that identifies quantitative differences between labeled samples. This approach, dubbed the PICquant platform, is independent of protein sequence identification and excludes unlabeled peptides that otherwise confound biomarker discovery. Application of the PICquant platform to a set of complex clinical samples showed that the system allows rapid identification of peptides that are differentially expressed between control and patient groups.
Asunto(s)
Isocianatos/análisis , Marcaje Isotópico/métodos , Espectrometría de Masas/métodos , Péptidos/análisis , Algoritmos , Isótopos de Carbono/análisis , Radioisótopos de Carbono/análisis , Cromatografía Liquida/métodos , Humanos , Isocianatos/química , Estructura MolecularRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score classification by direct LDL cholesterol (dLDL-C), calculated LDL cholesterol (cLDL-C), and non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C) compared to classification by reference measurement procedures (RMPs) performed at the CDC. METHODS: We examined 175 individuals, including 138 with CVD or conditions that may affect LDL-C measurement. dLDL-C measurements were performed using Denka, Kyowa, Sekisui, Serotec, Sysmex, UMA, and Wako reagents. cLDL-C was calculated by the Friedewald equation, using each manufacturer's direct HDL-C assay measurements, and total cholesterol and triglyceride measurements by Roche and Siemens (Advia) assays, respectively. RESULTS: For participants with triglycerides<2.26 mmol/L (<200 mg/dL), the overall misclassification rate for the CVD risk score ranged from 5% to 17% for cLDL-C methods and 8% to 26% for dLDL-C methods when compared to the RMP. Only Wako dLDL-C had fewer misclassifications than its corresponding cLDL-C method (8% vs 17%; P<0.05). Non-HDL-C assays misclassified fewer patients than dLDL-C for 4 of 8 methods (P<0.05). For participants with triglycerides≥2.26 mmol/L (≥200 mg/dL) and<4.52 mmol/L (<400 mg/dL), dLDL-C methods, in general, performed better than cLDL-C methods, and non-HDL-C methods showed better correspondence to the RMP for CVD risk score than either dLDL-C or cLDL-C methods. CONCLUSIONS: Except for hypertriglyceridemic individuals, 7 of 8 dLDL-C methods failed to show improved CVD risk score classification over the corresponding cLDL-C methods. Non-HDL-C showed overall the best concordance with the RMP for CVD risk score classification of both normal and hypertriglyceridemic individuals.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/clasificación , HDL-Colesterol/sangre , LDL-Colesterol/sangre , Dislipidemias/sangre , Triglicéridos/sangre , Análisis Químico de la Sangre/métodos , Análisis Químico de la Sangre/normas , Análisis Químico de la Sangre/estadística & datos numéricos , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/sangre , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/etiología , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Interpretación Estadística de Datos , Dislipidemias/complicaciones , Ayuno/sangre , Humanos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , UltracentrifugaciónRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To describe a cross-institutional approach to verify the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay and to document the kinetics of the serological response. METHODS: We conducted analytical performance evaluation studies using the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay on 5 Abbott ARCHITECT i2000 automated analyzers at 2 academic medical centers. RESULTS: Within-run and between-run coefficients of variance (CVs) for the antibody assay did not exceed 5.6% and 8.6%, respectively, for each institution. Quantitative and qualitative results agreed for lithium heparin plasma, EDTA-plasma and serum specimen types. Results for all SARS-CoV-2 IgG-positive and -negative specimens were concordant among analyzers except for 1 specimen at 1 institution. Qualitative and quantitative agreement was observed for specimens exchanged between institutions. All patients had detectable antibodies by day 10 from symptom onset and maintained seropositivity throughout specimen procurement. CONCLUSIONS: The analytical performance characteristics of the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay within and between 2 academic medical center clinical laboratories were acceptable for widespread clinical-laboratory use.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Antivirales/sangre , Prueba Serológica para COVID-19/normas , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Inmunoensayo/normas , Inmunoglobulina G/sangre , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Centros Médicos Académicos , COVID-19/sangre , COVID-19/inmunología , COVID-19/virología , Humanos , Variaciones Dependientes del Observador , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , SARS-CoV-2/patogenicidad , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , VirginiaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Methods from 7 manufacturers and 1 distributor for directly measuring HDL cholesterol (C) and LDL-C were evaluated for imprecision, trueness, total error, and specificity in nonfrozen serum samples. METHODS: We performed each direct method according to the manufacturer's instructions, using a Roche/Hitachi 917 analyzer, and compared the results with those obtained with reference measurement procedures for HDL-C and LDL-C. Imprecision was estimated for 35 runs performed with frozen pooled serum specimens and triplicate measurements on each individual sample. Sera from 37 individuals without disease and 138 with disease (primarily dyslipidemic and cardiovascular) were measured by each method. Trueness and total error were evaluated from the difference between the direct methods and reference measurement procedures. Specificity was evaluated from the dispersion in differences observed. RESULTS: Imprecision data based on 4 frozen serum pools showed total CVs <3.7% for HDL-C and <4.4% for LDL-C. Bias for the nondiseased group ranged from -5.4% to 4.8% for HDL-C and from -6.8% to 1.1% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from -8.6% to 8.8% for HDL-C and from -11.8% to 4.1% for LDL-C. Total error for the nondiseased group ranged from -13.4% to 13.6% for HDL-C and from -13.3% to 13.5% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from -19.8% to 36.3% for HDL-C and from -26.6% to 31.9% for LDL-C. CONCLUSIONS: Six of 8 HDL-C and 5 of 8 LDL-C direct methods met the National Cholesterol Education Program total error goals for nondiseased individuals. All the methods failed to meet these goals for diseased individuals, however, because of lack of specificity toward abnormal lipoproteins.
Asunto(s)
Análisis Químico de la Sangre/métodos , HDL-Colesterol/sangre , LDL-Colesterol/sangre , Humanos , Estándares de Referencia , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , UltracentrifugaciónRESUMEN
Trauma is a major problem in the United States. Mortality from trauma is the number one cause of death under the age of 45 in the United States and is the third leading cause of death for all age groups. There are approximately 200,000 deaths per year due to trauma in the United States at a cost of over $671 billion in combined healthcare costs and lost productivity. Unsurprisingly, trauma accounts for approximately 30% of all life-years lost in the United States. Due to immense development of trauma systems, a large majority of trauma patients survive the injury, but then go on to die from complications arising from the injury. These complications are marked by early and significant metabolic changes accompanied by inflammatory responses that lead to progressive organ failure and, ultimately, death. Early resuscitative and surgical interventions followed by close monitoring to identify and rescue treatment failures are key to successful outcomes. Currently, the adequacy of resuscitation is measured using vital signs, noninvasive methods such as bedside echocardiography or stroke volume variation, and other laboratory endpoints of resuscitation, such as lactate and base deficit. However, these methods may be too crude to understand cellular and subcellular changes that may be occurring in trauma patients. Better diagnostic and therapeutic markers are needed to assess the adequacy of interventions and monitor responses at a cellular and subcellular level and inform clinical decision-making before complications are clinically apparent. The developing field of metabolomics holds great promise in the identification and application of biochemical markers toward the clinical decision-making process.
Asunto(s)
Metabolómica/métodos , Medicina de Precisión/métodos , Humanos , Heridas y Lesiones/sangre , Heridas y Lesiones/metabolismoRESUMEN
Measurement of urine albumin is important for detecting and monitoring kidney disease. At the present time, measurement of urine albumin is not standardized due to the lack of a reference system, which includes both a reference measurement procedure and certified reference materials. Developing a reference system will provide a means for clinical laboratory measurement procedures to become standardized and will enable successful use of uniform clinical decision points. Currently, urine albumin results vary in excess of 40% depending on which commercially available measurement procedure is utilized for measurement. Clinicians may struggle with classification of kidney disease in part due to differences in measurements from lack of agreement among laboratory methodologies employed when assessing urine albumin concentrations. This report focuses on current findings in urine albumin testing, highlights important measurement and reporting considerations, and presents strategies for developing a reference measurement procedure to enable standardization of urine albumin measurements.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Urine albumin is a key laboratory test used for classification, assessment of risk, and monitoring treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease. Urine albumin measurement results are not standardized among different measurement procedures. Consequently, clinical guidelines using fixed decision values for urine albumin cannot be applied consistently. CONTENT: Isotope dilution mass spectrometry reference measurement procedures and certified reference materials are being developed to enable standardization of immunoassay measurement procedures for urine albumin. A previous report determined calibration bias was the major error source for differences in results among different measurement procedures for urine albumin. Performance goals for between-day precision, ≤6% CV above 15 mg/L, and for specimen-specific effects, ≤6% CV, were established on the basis of the performance capability of current measurement procedures. The biological variation model was used to estimate a total allowable error of ≤24%-30% and from that the goal for bias of ≤7%-13%. SUMMARY: A reference system of higher-order certified reference materials and reference measurement procedures is being developed to enable standardization of urine albumin measurement results. Goals have been established for total allowable error, specimen-specific effects, imprecision, and bias to facilitate efforts to standardize urine albumin measurement results.