Niamh Nolan, Lilian Tee, Swathi Vijayakumar, Ivana Burazor, Evangelos Hytopoulos, William H Biggs, Michael Beggs, Cynthia French, Douglas S Harrington
{"title":"Analytical performance validation of a coronary heart disease risk assessment multi-analyte proteomic test.","authors":"Niamh Nolan, Lilian Tee, Swathi Vijayakumar, Ivana Burazor, Evangelos Hytopoulos, William H Biggs, Michael Beggs, Cynthia French, Douglas S Harrington","doi":"10.1517/17530059.2013.753055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Coronary heart disease (CHD) remains prevalent despite efforts to improve CHD risk assessment. The authors developed a multi-analyte immunoassay-based CHD risk assessment (CHDRA) algorithm, clinically validated in a multicenter study, to improve CHDRA in intermediate risk individuals.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Clinical laboratory validation of the CHDRA biomarker assays' analytical performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multiplexed immunoassay panels developed for the seven CHDRA assays were evaluated with donor sera in a clinical laboratory. Specificity, sensitivity, interfering substances and reproducibility of the CHDRA assays, along with the effects of pre-analytical specimen processing, were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analytical measurements of the CHDRA panel proteins (CTACK, Eotaxin, Fas Ligand, HGF, IL-16, MCP-3 and sFas) exhibited acceptable accuracy (80 - 120%), cross-reactivity (< 1%), interference (< 30% at high concentrations of bilirubin, lipids, hemoglobin and HAMA), sensitivity and reproducibility (< 20% CV across multiple runs, operators and instruments). Recoveries from donor sera subjected to typical clinical laboratory pre-analytical conditions were within 80 - 120%. The pre-analytical variables did not substantively impact the CHDRA scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CHDRA panel analytical validation in a clinical laboratory meets or exceeds the specifications established during the clinical utility studies. Risk score reproducibility across multiple test scenarios suggests the assays are not susceptible to clinical laboratory pre-analytical and analytical variation.</p>","PeriodicalId":72996,"journal":{"name":"Expert opinion on medical diagnostics","volume":"7 2","pages":"127-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1517/17530059.2013.753055","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert opinion on medical diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1517/17530059.2013.753055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/12/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Background: Coronary heart disease (CHD) remains prevalent despite efforts to improve CHD risk assessment. The authors developed a multi-analyte immunoassay-based CHD risk assessment (CHDRA) algorithm, clinically validated in a multicenter study, to improve CHDRA in intermediate risk individuals.
Objective: Clinical laboratory validation of the CHDRA biomarker assays' analytical performance.
Methods: Multiplexed immunoassay panels developed for the seven CHDRA assays were evaluated with donor sera in a clinical laboratory. Specificity, sensitivity, interfering substances and reproducibility of the CHDRA assays, along with the effects of pre-analytical specimen processing, were evaluated.
Results: Analytical measurements of the CHDRA panel proteins (CTACK, Eotaxin, Fas Ligand, HGF, IL-16, MCP-3 and sFas) exhibited acceptable accuracy (80 - 120%), cross-reactivity (< 1%), interference (< 30% at high concentrations of bilirubin, lipids, hemoglobin and HAMA), sensitivity and reproducibility (< 20% CV across multiple runs, operators and instruments). Recoveries from donor sera subjected to typical clinical laboratory pre-analytical conditions were within 80 - 120%. The pre-analytical variables did not substantively impact the CHDRA scores.
Conclusions: The CHDRA panel analytical validation in a clinical laboratory meets or exceeds the specifications established during the clinical utility studies. Risk score reproducibility across multiple test scenarios suggests the assays are not susceptible to clinical laboratory pre-analytical and analytical variation.