{"title":"如何在实际实验室实践中验证 ELISA 免疫分析法的分析和临床性能。以 PCSK9 为例","authors":"Tereza Vacková , Antonín Jabor , Zdenek Kubíček , Janka Franeková","doi":"10.1016/j.jim.2024.113693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Manufacturers and diagnostic companies often recommend on-site verification of analytical performance in the clinical laboratory. The validation process used by manufacturers is rarely described in detail, and certain information on analytical performance is missing from the product sheet, especially for immunoanalytical methods. We describe an approach to the detailed validation of an ELISA method for the measurement of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) plasma concentrations. We compared manufacturers' claims of analytical performance with data obtained in the field laboratory using several approaches.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We used the Human Proprotein Convertase 9/PCSK9 Quantikine ELISA diagnostic kit (R&D systems, Bio-Techne Ltd., Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, UK) and three levels of quality control solution Quantikine Immunoassay Control Group 235 (R&D systems, Bio-Techne Ltd., Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, UK) to verify precision. We measured the concentration of PCSK9 using the DS2 ELISA Reader (Dynex Technologies GmbH, Denkendorf, Germany). We used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the R statistical package (R core team, version 1.4.5). Statistical analysis and terminology were performed according to protocol CLSI EP15-A3, and the reference interval was checked according to CLSI/IFCC C28-A3c.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We found a significant difference between the manufacturer's claims of analytical performance and real data measured in the routine clinical laboratory. The calculated CV (%) for repeatability (calculated by simple estimation of the mean and SD, as used by the manufacturer) was between 5.5% and 7.4%, but the manufacturer's claim was between 4.1% and 6.5%. Using ANOVA, the true repeatability was between 5.0% and 6.9%. Similarly, ANOVA revealed values of CV (%) for within-laboratory imprecision between 6.5% and 9.1%, while the manufacturer's claims were between 4.1% and 5.9%. The recovery ranged from 105.5% to 121.8%. The manufacturer's recommended reference interval was checked and we didn't find any significant difference between men and women.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>We describe a comprehensive approach to verify the analytical performance of an ELISA method using the measurement of PCSK9 plasma concentration as an example. We found differences between the results of this approach based on the CLSI EP15-A3 protocol and data provided by the manufacturer. We recommend the verification of analytical performance by more complex statistical tools in laboratory practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16000,"journal":{"name":"Journal of immunological methods","volume":"530 ","pages":"Article 113693"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to verify the analytical and clinical performance of ELISA immunoanalysis in the real laboratory practice. PCSK9 as an example\",\"authors\":\"Tereza Vacková , Antonín Jabor , Zdenek Kubíček , Janka Franeková\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jim.2024.113693\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Manufacturers and diagnostic companies often recommend on-site verification of analytical performance in the clinical laboratory. The validation process used by manufacturers is rarely described in detail, and certain information on analytical performance is missing from the product sheet, especially for immunoanalytical methods. We describe an approach to the detailed validation of an ELISA method for the measurement of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) plasma concentrations. We compared manufacturers' claims of analytical performance with data obtained in the field laboratory using several approaches.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We used the Human Proprotein Convertase 9/PCSK9 Quantikine ELISA diagnostic kit (R&D systems, Bio-Techne Ltd., Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, UK) and three levels of quality control solution Quantikine Immunoassay Control Group 235 (R&D systems, Bio-Techne Ltd., Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, UK) to verify precision. We measured the concentration of PCSK9 using the DS2 ELISA Reader (Dynex Technologies GmbH, Denkendorf, Germany). We used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the R statistical package (R core team, version 1.4.5). Statistical analysis and terminology were performed according to protocol CLSI EP15-A3, and the reference interval was checked according to CLSI/IFCC C28-A3c.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We found a significant difference between the manufacturer's claims of analytical performance and real data measured in the routine clinical laboratory. The calculated CV (%) for repeatability (calculated by simple estimation of the mean and SD, as used by the manufacturer) was between 5.5% and 7.4%, but the manufacturer's claim was between 4.1% and 6.5%. Using ANOVA, the true repeatability was between 5.0% and 6.9%. Similarly, ANOVA revealed values of CV (%) for within-laboratory imprecision between 6.5% and 9.1%, while the manufacturer's claims were between 4.1% and 5.9%. The recovery ranged from 105.5% to 121.8%. The manufacturer's recommended reference interval was checked and we didn't find any significant difference between men and women.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>We describe a comprehensive approach to verify the analytical performance of an ELISA method using the measurement of PCSK9 plasma concentration as an example. We found differences between the results of this approach based on the CLSI EP15-A3 protocol and data provided by the manufacturer. We recommend the verification of analytical performance by more complex statistical tools in laboratory practice.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of immunological methods\",\"volume\":\"530 \",\"pages\":\"Article 113693\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of immunological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022175924000784\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of immunological methods","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022175924000784","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
How to verify the analytical and clinical performance of ELISA immunoanalysis in the real laboratory practice. PCSK9 as an example
Background
Manufacturers and diagnostic companies often recommend on-site verification of analytical performance in the clinical laboratory. The validation process used by manufacturers is rarely described in detail, and certain information on analytical performance is missing from the product sheet, especially for immunoanalytical methods. We describe an approach to the detailed validation of an ELISA method for the measurement of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) plasma concentrations. We compared manufacturers' claims of analytical performance with data obtained in the field laboratory using several approaches.
Methods
We used the Human Proprotein Convertase 9/PCSK9 Quantikine ELISA diagnostic kit (R&D systems, Bio-Techne Ltd., Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, UK) and three levels of quality control solution Quantikine Immunoassay Control Group 235 (R&D systems, Bio-Techne Ltd., Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, UK) to verify precision. We measured the concentration of PCSK9 using the DS2 ELISA Reader (Dynex Technologies GmbH, Denkendorf, Germany). We used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the R statistical package (R core team, version 1.4.5). Statistical analysis and terminology were performed according to protocol CLSI EP15-A3, and the reference interval was checked according to CLSI/IFCC C28-A3c.
Results
We found a significant difference between the manufacturer's claims of analytical performance and real data measured in the routine clinical laboratory. The calculated CV (%) for repeatability (calculated by simple estimation of the mean and SD, as used by the manufacturer) was between 5.5% and 7.4%, but the manufacturer's claim was between 4.1% and 6.5%. Using ANOVA, the true repeatability was between 5.0% and 6.9%. Similarly, ANOVA revealed values of CV (%) for within-laboratory imprecision between 6.5% and 9.1%, while the manufacturer's claims were between 4.1% and 5.9%. The recovery ranged from 105.5% to 121.8%. The manufacturer's recommended reference interval was checked and we didn't find any significant difference between men and women.
Conclusions
We describe a comprehensive approach to verify the analytical performance of an ELISA method using the measurement of PCSK9 plasma concentration as an example. We found differences between the results of this approach based on the CLSI EP15-A3 protocol and data provided by the manufacturer. We recommend the verification of analytical performance by more complex statistical tools in laboratory practice.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Immunological Methods is devoted to covering techniques for: (1) Quantitating and detecting antibodies and/or antigens. (2) Purifying immunoglobulins, lymphokines and other molecules of the immune system. (3) Isolating antigens and other substances important in immunological processes. (4) Labelling antigens and antibodies. (5) Localizing antigens and/or antibodies in tissues and cells. (6) Detecting, and fractionating immunocompetent cells. (7) Assaying for cellular immunity. (8) Documenting cell-cell interactions. (9) Initiating immunity and unresponsiveness. (10) Transplanting tissues. (11) Studying items closely related to immunity such as complement, reticuloendothelial system and others. (12) Molecular techniques for studying immune cells and their receptors. (13) Imaging of the immune system. (14) Methods for production or their fragments in eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells.
In addition the journal will publish articles on novel methods for analysing the organization, structure and expression of genes for immunologically important molecules such as immunoglobulins, T cell receptors and accessory molecules involved in antigen recognition, processing and presentation. Submitted full length manuscripts should describe new methods of broad applicability to immunology and not simply the application of an established method to a particular substance - although papers describing such applications may be considered for publication as a short Technical Note. Review articles will also be published by the Journal of Immunological Methods. In general these manuscripts are by solicitation however anyone interested in submitting a review can contact the Reviews Editor and provide an outline of the proposed review.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
