Discordance Between Iothalamate and Iohexol Urinary Clearances.

BACKGROUND: Iothalamate and iohexol are contrast agents that have supplanted inulin for the measurement of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in clinical practice. Previous studies have noted possible differences in renal handling of these 2 agents, but clarity about the differences has been lacking. STUDY DESIGN: Study of diagnostic test accuracy. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 150 participants with a wide range of GFRs were studied in an outpatient clinical laboratory facility. INDEX TESTS: Simultaneous urinary clearances of iothalamate, iohexol, and creatinine. REFERENCE TEST: None. OUTCOME: Relative differences between the urinary clearances. Iohexol and iothalamate in plasma and urine were assayed concurrently by a novel liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assay. RESULTS: Mean iohexol, iothalamate, and creatinine clearances were 52±28 (SD), 60±34, and 74±40 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively. The proportional bias of iohexol to iothalamate urinary clearance was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83-0.88) and was proportional across the GFR range. The mean proportional bias of iohexol clearance compared with creatinine clearance is 1.27 (95% CI, 1.20-1.34), whereas that of iothalamate clearance compared with creatinine clearance is 1.09 (95% CI, 1.03-1.15). LIMITATIONS: Lack of reference standard. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a significant and consistent difference between urinary clearances of iothalamate and iohexol. Comparison of studies reporting renal clearance measurements using iohexol versus iothalamate must account for this observed bias.

Discordance between urine pH measured by dipstick and pH meter: implications for methotrexate administration protocols.

OBJECTIVES: To minimize toxicity of high-dose methotrexate (MTX) therapy, urinary alkalinization with frequent monitoring of urine pH is required. Urine pH is usually assessed by fast and convenient dipstick methods. When urine color interferes with dipstick measurement, as occurs in patients receiving MTX, alternative methods such as pH meters are used. Nursing staff caring for patients on high-dose MTX reported that urine pH results from dipstick and pH analyzers were often clinically discordant. As a result urine pH by dipstick and pH meter were compared in patients on high-dose MTX therapy and patients with normal-colored urine samples. DESIGN AND METHODS: We measured urine pH by dipstick and pH meter in 116 urine samples from 4 patients receiving high-dose MTX therapy, and in 50 normal-colored urine samples from 50 patients not on MTX therapy. RESULTS: In patients on MTX therapy the mean (±standard deviation) bias between dipstick and pH meter urine pH was 0.7±0.4, compared to 0.4±0.3 in patients not on MTX. For patients on MTX clinical concordance between dipstick and pH meter urine results was poor around a clinical cut-off of pH 8.0. Of the 92 samples with a meter urine pH≤8.0, 72 had a discordant value by dipstick (pH>8). CONCLUSIONS: Urine pH readings by dipstick and pH meter are not equivalent, and the bias between them is exacerbated in patients on MTX. Institutions with high-dose MTX therapy protocols should not alternate between dipstick and pH meter urine pH monitoring.

Iothalamate quantification by tandem mass spectrometry to measure glomerular filtration rate.

BACKGROUND: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) can be determined by measuring renal clearance of the radiocontrast agent iothalamate. Current analytic methods for quantifying iothalamate concentrations in plasma and urine using liquid chromatography or capillary electrophoresis have limitations such as long analysis times and susceptibility to interferences. We developed a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method to overcome these limitations. METHODS: Urine and plasma samples were deproteinized using acetonitrile and centrifugation. The supernatant was diluted in water and analyzed by LC-MS/MS using a water:methanol gradient. We monitored 4 multiple reaction monitoring transitions: m/z 614.8-487.0, 614.8-456.0, 614.8-361.1, and 614.8-177.1. We compared the results to those obtained via our standard capillary electrophoresis (CE-UV) on samples from 53 patients undergoing clinical GFR testing. RESULTS: Mean recovery was 90%-110% in both urine and plasma matrices. Imprecision was

Quantification of urinary albumin by using protein cleavage and LC-MS/MS.

BACKGROUND: Urinary albumin excretion is a sensitive diagnostic and prognostic marker for renal disease. Therefore, measurement of urinary albumin must be accurate and precise. We have developed a method to quantify intact urinary albumin with a low limit of quantification (LOQ). METHODS: We constructed an external calibration curve using purified human serum albumin (HSA) added to a charcoal-stripped urine matrix. We then added an internal standard, (15)N-labeled recombinant HSA ((15)NrHSA), to the calibrators, controls, and patient urine samples. The samples were reduced, alkylated, and digested with trypsin. The concentration of albumin in each sample was determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and linear regression analysis, in which the relative abundance area ratio of the tryptic peptides (42)LVNEVTEFAK(51) and (526)QTALVELVK(534) from albumin and (15)NrHSA were referenced to the calibration curve. RESULTS: The lower limit of quantification was 3.13 mg/L, and the linear dynamic range was 3.13-200 mg/L. Replicate digests from low, medium, and high controls (n = 5) gave intraassay imprecision CVs of 2.8%-11.0% for the peptide (42)LVNEVTEFAK(51), and 1.9%-12.3% for the (526)QTALVELVK(534) peptide. Interassay imprecision of the controls for a period of 10 consecutive days (n = 10) yielded CVs of 1.5%-14.8% for the (42)LVNEVTEFAK(51) peptide, and 6.4%-14.1% for the (526)QTALVELVK(534) peptide. For the (42)LVNEVTEFAK(51) peptide, a method comparison between LC-MS/MS and an immunoturbidometric method for 138 patient samples gave an R(2) value of 0.97 and a regression line of y = 0.99x + 23.16. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary albumin can be quantified by a protein cleavage LC-MS/MS method using a (15)NrHSA internal standard. This method provides improved analytical performance in the clinically relevant range compared to a commercially available immunoturbidometric assay.

Comparison between immunoturbidimetry, size-exclusion chromatography, and LC-MS to quantify urinary albumin.

BACKGROUND: The accurate and precise measurement of urinary albumin is critical, since even minor increases are diagnostically sensitive indicators of renal disease, cardiovascular events, and risk for death. To gain insights into potential measurement biases, we systematically compared urine albumin measurements performed by LC-MS, a clinically available immunoturbidimetric assay, and size-exclusion HPLC. METHODS: We obtained unused clinical urine samples from 150 patients who were stratified by degrees of albuminuria (<20 mg/L, 20-250 mg/L, >250 mg/L) as determined by the immunoturbidimetric assay used in our clinical laboratory (Roche Hitachi 912). Urine albumin was then remeasured via LC-MS and HPLC (Accumin) assays. RESULTS: The immunoturbidimetric assay, calibrated using manufacturer-supplied serum-derived calibrators (Diasorin), underestimated albumin compared with LC-MS. After calibration with purified HSA, this immunoturbidimetric assay correlated well with LC-MS. HPLC overestimated albumin compared with both LC-MS and immunoturbidimetry. The current LC-MS and HPLC assays both performed poorly at concentrations <20 mg/L. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts are needed to establish gold-standard traceable calibrators for clinical assays. LC-MS is a specific method to quantify albumin in native urine when concentrations exceed 20 mg/L, and therefore could be employed for standardization among assays.