BACKGROUND: The improvement of the consistency of gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) activity results among different assays after calibration with a common material was estimated. We evaluated if this harmonization could lead to reference limits common to different routine methods. METHODS: Seven laboratories measured GGT activity using their own routine analytical system both according to the manufacturer's recommendation and after calibration with a multi-enzyme calibrator [value assigned by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) reference procedure]. All samples were re-measured using the IFCC reference procedure. Two groups of subjects were selected in each laboratory: a group of healthy men aged 18-25 years without long-term medication and with alcohol consumption less than 44 g/day and a group of subjects with elevated GGT activity. RESULTS: The day-to-day coefficients of variation were less than 2.9% in each laboratory. The means obtained in the group of healthy subjects without common calibration (range of the means 16-23 U/L) were significantly different from those obtained by the IFCC procedure in five laboratories. After calibration, the means remained significantly different from the IFCC procedure results in only one laboratory. For three calibrated methods, the slope values of linear regression vs. the IFCC procedure were not different from the value 1. The results obtained with these three methods for healthy subjects (n=117) were gathered and reference limits were calculated. These were 11-49 U/L (2.5th-97.5th percentiles). The calibration also improved the consistency of elevated results when compared to the IFCC procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The common calibration improved the level of consistency between different routine methods. It permitted to define common reference limits which are quite similar to those proposed by the IFCC. This approach should lead to a real benefit in terms of prevention, screening, diagnosis, therapeutic monitoring and for epidemiological studies.
BACKGROUND: The improvement of the consistency of gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) activity results among different assays after calibration with a common material was estimated. We evaluated if this harmonization could lead to reference limits common to different routine methods. METHODS: Seven laboratories measured GGT activity using their own routine analytical system both according to the manufacturer's recommendation and after calibration with a multi-enzyme calibrator [value assigned by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) reference procedure]. All samples were re-measured using the IFCC reference procedure. Two groups of subjects were selected in each laboratory: a group of healthy men aged 18-25 years without long-term medication and with alcohol consumption less than 44 g/day and a group of subjects with elevated GGT activity. RESULTS: The day-to-day coefficients of variation were less than 2.9% in each laboratory. The means obtained in the group of healthy subjects without common calibration (range of the means 16-23 U/L) were significantly different from those obtained by the IFCC procedure in five laboratories. After calibration, the means remained significantly different from the IFCC procedure results in only one laboratory. For three calibrated methods, the slope values of linear regression vs. the IFCC procedure were not different from the value 1. The results obtained with these three methods for healthy subjects (n=117) were gathered and reference limits were calculated. These were 11-49 U/L (2.5th-97.5th percentiles). The calibration also improved the consistency of elevated results when compared to the IFCC procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The common calibration improved the level of consistency between different routine methods. It permitted to define common reference limits which are quite similar to those proposed by the IFCC. This approach should lead to a real benefit in terms of prevention, screening, diagnosis, therapeutic monitoring and for epidemiological studies.
Authors: Ryan D Bradley; Annette L Fitzpatrick; David R Jacobs; Duk-Hee Lee; Nancy Swords Jenny; David Herrington Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 5.162