| Literature DB >> 35260937 |
Raymond Neil Dalton1, Timothy Scott Isbell2, Ryan Ferguson3,4, Louis Fiore3,4, Andrei Malic5,6, Jeffrey Anton DuBois7,8.
Abstract
Early detection of CKD using point of care creatinine and eGFR testing improves patient management outcomes. We undertook a field study to evaluate the use of a whole blood creatinine/eGFR device to screen a rural Nicaraguan population to determine the variability between creatinine methods and specimen types. All specimens including capillary and venous dried blood spots (DBS) were tested with an isotope dilution liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (ID-LCMS) gold standard method. This is to our knowledge the first time a capillary whole blood (POC) method has been directly compared to the gold standard IDMS method, through the novel approach of using dried blood spots. Capillary and venous whole blood specimens were obtained and tested directly with the BCMS method, and then, DBS samples were prepared. Venous plasma specimens were tested using three laboratory analyzer creatinine methods. DBS were sent to the site performing ID-LCMS. Control samples were also prepared to assess the stability of shipment and storage of DBS. The ID-LCMS method was aligned using primary and secondary standards. Sixty-six (66) patients participated in the study, and the CKD prevalence rate was 7.8%. While all creatinine methods showed a good correlation to ID-LCMS, there was a positive bias (mean absolute bias range: 0.21-0.63 mg/dL). All methods used were 100% sensitive, but specificity varied from 62.7 to 94.9% with PPV ranging from 25 to 62.5%. A correction factor was used to align the values from each method to ID-LCMS which improved the specificity of each method. This study used a unique DBS approach to align capillary whole blood creatinine to ID-LCMS. To ensure reliability of BCMS for identifying screened patients with CKD, it is important to establish IDMS traceability and alignment prior to undertaking CKD studies.Entities:
Keywords: Creatinine; Stable isotope dilution liquid chromatography mass spectrometry; Standardization; Traceability
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35260937 PMCID: PMC8956531 DOI: 10.1007/s00216-022-03942-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem ISSN: 1618-2642 Impact factor: 4.142
Correlation of creatinine testing methods
| Regression analysis | Bias (method–reference) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slope | Intercept | Mean (mg/dL) | SD (mg/dL) | |||
| LCMS capillary versus LCMS venous | 64 | 0.994 | 1.084 | − 0.091 | − 0.02 | 0.13 |
| Roche Cobas plasma versus LCMS venous | 64 | 0.992 | 1.427 | − 0.152 | 0.21 | 0.49 |
| Siemens RxL plasma versus LCMS venous | 64 | 0.977 | 1.652 | 0.055 | 0.61 | 0.77 |
| Vitros plasma versus LCMS venous | 34 | 0.845 | 1.526 | − 0.042 | 0.34 | 0.27 |
| BCMS venous versus LCMS venous | 63 | 0.955 | 1.388 | 0.120 | 0.40 | 0.20 |
| BCMS capillary versus LCMS capillary | 63 | 0.931 | 1.629 | 0.188 | 0.63 | 0.37 |
| BCMS capillary versus SSC venous | 64 | 0.967 | 1.359 | − 0.210 | 0.19 | 0.25 |
Fig. 1Linear regression analyses for each specimen type and creatinine method compared to ID-LCMS. A Correlation LCMS capillary versus LCMS venous. B Correlation BCMS capillary versus BCMS venous. C Correlation Cobas plasma versus LCMS venous. D Correlation dimension plasma versus LCMS venous. E Correlation Vitros plasma versus LCMS venous. F Correlation BCMS venous versus LCMS venous. G Correlation BCMS capillary versus LCMS capillary
Fig. 2Bias plots of each creatinine method compared to ID-LCMS. A Bias plot LCMS capillary versus LCMS venous. B Bias plot BCMS capillary versus BCMS venous. C Bias plot Cobas plasma versus LCMS venous. D Bias plot dimension plasma versus LCMS venous. E Bias plot Vitros plasma versus LCMS venous. F Bias plot BCMS venous versus LCMS venous. G Correlation BCMS capillary versus LCMS capillary
Creatinine method concordance: pre- and post-calibration offset alignment at decision making level of 1.2 mg/dL
| Method | Sample | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roche Cobas | Pre-offset | 64 | 100 (5/5) | 94.9 (56/59) | 62.5 | 100 |
| Post-offset (0.83) | 64 | 100 (5/5) | 100 (59/59) | 100 | 100 | |
| Siemens RxL | Pre-offset | 64 | 100 (5/5) | 62.7 (37/59) | 18.5 | 100 |
| Post-offset (0.58) | 64 | 100 (5/5) | 100 (59/59) | 100 | 100 | |
| Vitros | Pre-offset | 35 | 100 (3/3) | 81.3 (26/32) | 33.3 | 100 |
| Post-offset (0.68) | 35 | 100 (3/3) | 96.9 (31/32) | 75.0 | 100 | |
| BCMS | Pre-offset | 64 | 100 (5/5) | 83.1 (49/59) | 33.3 | 100 |
| Post-offset (0.63) | 64 | 100 (5/5) | 100 (59/59) | 100 | 100 | |
| BCMS | Pre-offset | 64 | 100 (5/5) | 72.1 (44/59) | 25.0 | 100 |
| Post-offset (0.51) | 64 | 100 (5/5) | 98.3 (58/59) | 83.3 | 100 | |
Fig. 3Distribution of creatinine values pre- and post-correction for each specimen type and creatinine method compared to ID-LCMS. A IDMS venous vs Cobas plasma correction. B IDMS venous vs dimension plasma correction. C IDMS venous vs Vitros plasma correction. D IDMS venous vs BCMS venous correction. E IDMS capillary vs BCMS capillary correction. F IDMS venous vs BCMS capillary correction