BACKGROUND: Intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) measurements are used to guide therapy in renal patients, but variability in results can occur depending on the assay used. This study has investigated iPTH assay variation in North West England and paired data with regional audit data to determine clinical relevance of assay variability. METHODS: Thirty-seven haemodialysis patients had blood taken (EDTA plasma, and serum), and samples were processed at 17 laboratories that analyse iPTH for North West dialysis patients. Correction factors were calculated and applied to the iPTH assay results to enable direct comparisons. These correction factors were also applied to Regional Audit data to determine if iPTH assay variability explains the variation in unit performance in achieving PTH targets. RESULTS: The iPTH results from the 37 patients were significantly different when either analysed by different assays and/or different laboratories (P < 0.001). The Abbott Architect method consistently produced the highest iPTH results. Of the 37 patients, between 49% and 65% would achieve the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) iPTH target depending on the assay used. When results were adjusted using correction factors, 21% of the patients would require a change of management according to guidelines. Data from all haemodialysis units submitted for the regional audit were adjusted to the Roche assay and this led to a small change in achievement of KDIGO iPTH targets in individual units when compared to each other. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of iPTH assay variability and diversity in clinical management leads to variation in achieving iPTH targets. Both need to be improved and/or standardized to improve patient care.
BACKGROUND: Intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) measurements are used to guide therapy in renal patients, but variability in results can occur depending on the assay used. This study has investigated iPTH assay variation in North West England and paired data with regional audit data to determine clinical relevance of assay variability. METHODS: Thirty-seven haemodialysis patients had blood taken (EDTA plasma, and serum), and samples were processed at 17 laboratories that analyse iPTH for North West dialysis patients. Correction factors were calculated and applied to the iPTH assay results to enable direct comparisons. These correction factors were also applied to Regional Audit data to determine if iPTH assay variability explains the variation in unit performance in achieving PTH targets. RESULTS: The iPTH results from the 37 patients were significantly different when either analysed by different assays and/or different laboratories (P < 0.001). The Abbott Architect method consistently produced the highest iPTH results. Of the 37 patients, between 49% and 65% would achieve the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) iPTH target depending on the assay used. When results were adjusted using correction factors, 21% of the patients would require a change of management according to guidelines. Data from all haemodialysis units submitted for the regional audit were adjusted to the Roche assay and this led to a small change in achievement of KDIGO iPTH targets in individual units when compared to each other. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of iPTH assay variability and diversity in clinical management leads to variation in achieving iPTH targets. Both need to be improved and/or standardized to improve patient care.
Authors: Rachel M Holden; Reem A Mustafa; R Todd Alexander; Marisa Battistella; Micheli U Bevilacqua; Greg Knoll; Fabrice Mac-Way; Martina Reslerova; Ron Wald; Philip D Acott; Patrick Feltmate; Allan Grill; Kailash K Jindal; Meena Karsanji; Bryce A Kiberd; Sara Mahdavi; Kailee McCarron; Amber O Molnar; Maury Pinsk; Celia Rodd; Steven D Soroka; Amanda J Vinson; Deborah Zimmerman; Catherine M Clase Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2020-08-04
Authors: Kittrawee Kritmetapak; Louis A Losbanos; Jolaine M Hines; Katherine L O'Grady; Candice Z Ulmer; Hubert W Vesper; Felicity T Enders; Ravinder J Singh; Rajiv Kumar Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 8.327