杂合血红蛋白E对六种商用血红蛋白A1c测定方法的影响

S. Yong, Hong Liu, Cindy Lye Teng Lum, Qian Liu, Sin Ye Sim, Felicia Fu Mun Chay, Wan Ling Cheng, Siew Fong Neo, S. Chew, Lizhen Ong, T. P. Loh, Qinde Liu, T. Teo, S. Sethi
{"title":"杂合血红蛋白E对六种商用血红蛋白A1c测定方法的影响","authors":"S. Yong, Hong Liu, Cindy Lye Teng Lum, Qian Liu, Sin Ye Sim, Felicia Fu Mun Chay, Wan Ling Cheng, Siew Fong Neo, S. Chew, Lizhen Ong, T. P. Loh, Qinde Liu, T. Teo, S. Sethi","doi":"10.7717/PEERJ-ACHEM.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nThis study examined the impact of heterozygous HbE on HbA1c measurements by six commonly used commercial methods. The results were compared with those from a modified isotope-dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) reference laboratory method on a liquid chromatograph coupled with tandem mass spectrometer (LC-MS/MS).\n\n\n\nTwenty-three leftover samples of patients with heterozygous HbE (HbA1c range: 5.4–11.6%), and nineteen samples with normal hemoglobin (HbA1c range: 5.0–13.7%) were included. The selected commercial methods included the Tina-quant HbA1c Gen. 3 (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), Cobas B 101 (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), D100 (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA), Variant II Turbo HbA1c 2.0 (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA), DCA Vantage (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) and HbA1c Advanced (Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA, USA).\n\n\n\nWith the exception of Cobas B 101 and the Variant II Turbo 2.0, the 95% confidence intervals of the Passing–Bablok regression lines between the results from the six commercial methods and the IDMS method overlapped. The latter suggested no statistically significant difference in results and hence no impact on HbA1c result despite the presence of heterozygous HbE. The method of Cobas B 101 gave positive bias at the range of concentrations examined (5.4–11.6%), while that of Variant II Turbo 2.0 gave positive bias at concentrations up to approximately 9.5%. The finding of significant positive bias in the methods of Cobas B 101 and Variant II Turbo 2.0 agrees with the observations of some previous studies, but is contrary to manufacturer’s claim indicating the absence of interference by heterozygous HbE. Our results also clearly showed the impact of heterozygous HbE across a fairly broad measurement range using a laboratory method (the Variant II Turbo 2.0). Laboratory practitioners and clinicians should familiarize themselves with prevailing hemoglobin variants in the population they serve and select the appropriate methods for HbA1c measurement.\n","PeriodicalId":93804,"journal":{"name":"PeerJ analytical chemistry","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of heterozygous hemoglobin E on six commercial methods for hemoglobin A1c measurement\",\"authors\":\"S. Yong, Hong Liu, Cindy Lye Teng Lum, Qian Liu, Sin Ye Sim, Felicia Fu Mun Chay, Wan Ling Cheng, Siew Fong Neo, S. Chew, Lizhen Ong, T. P. Loh, Qinde Liu, T. Teo, S. Sethi\",\"doi\":\"10.7717/PEERJ-ACHEM.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\nThis study examined the impact of heterozygous HbE on HbA1c measurements by six commonly used commercial methods. The results were compared with those from a modified isotope-dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) reference laboratory method on a liquid chromatograph coupled with tandem mass spectrometer (LC-MS/MS).\\n\\n\\n\\nTwenty-three leftover samples of patients with heterozygous HbE (HbA1c range: 5.4–11.6%), and nineteen samples with normal hemoglobin (HbA1c range: 5.0–13.7%) were included. The selected commercial methods included the Tina-quant HbA1c Gen. 3 (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), Cobas B 101 (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), D100 (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA), Variant II Turbo HbA1c 2.0 (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA), DCA Vantage (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) and HbA1c Advanced (Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA, USA).\\n\\n\\n\\nWith the exception of Cobas B 101 and the Variant II Turbo 2.0, the 95% confidence intervals of the Passing–Bablok regression lines between the results from the six commercial methods and the IDMS method overlapped. The latter suggested no statistically significant difference in results and hence no impact on HbA1c result despite the presence of heterozygous HbE. The method of Cobas B 101 gave positive bias at the range of concentrations examined (5.4–11.6%), while that of Variant II Turbo 2.0 gave positive bias at concentrations up to approximately 9.5%. The finding of significant positive bias in the methods of Cobas B 101 and Variant II Turbo 2.0 agrees with the observations of some previous studies, but is contrary to manufacturer’s claim indicating the absence of interference by heterozygous HbE. Our results also clearly showed the impact of heterozygous HbE across a fairly broad measurement range using a laboratory method (the Variant II Turbo 2.0). Laboratory practitioners and clinicians should familiarize themselves with prevailing hemoglobin variants in the population they serve and select the appropriate methods for HbA1c measurement.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":93804,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PeerJ analytical chemistry\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PeerJ analytical chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7717/PEERJ-ACHEM.9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PeerJ analytical chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7717/PEERJ-ACHEM.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究通过六种常用的商业方法检测了杂合HbE对HbA1c测量的影响。在液相色谱仪-串联质谱联用(LC-MS/MS)上,将结果与改进的同位素稀释质谱(IDMS)标准实验室方法进行比较。纳入23例杂合HbE患者(HbA1c范围:5.4-11.6%)和19例正常血红蛋白患者(HbA1c范围:5.0-13.7%)的剩余样本。选定的商业方法包括:Tina-quant HbA1c Gen. 3(罗氏诊断公司,瑞士巴塞尔)、Cobas B 101(罗氏诊断公司,瑞士巴塞尔)、D100 (Bio-Rad实验室,美国加利福尼亚州赫拉克勒斯)、Variant II Turbo HbA1c 2.0 (Bio-Rad实验室,加利福尼亚州赫拉克勒斯,美国)、DCA Vantage(西门子医疗公司,德国埃尔兰根)和HbA1c Advanced(贝克曼库尔特公司,加利福尼亚州布雷亚)。除Cobas B 101和Variant II Turbo 2.0外,6种商业方法的结果与IDMS方法的pass - bablok回归线的95%置信区间重叠。后者表明结果无统计学差异,因此尽管存在杂合HbE,但对HbA1c结果没有影响。Cobas B 101方法在检测浓度范围内(5.4-11.6%)具有正偏倚,而Variant II Turbo 2.0方法在检测浓度范围内具有约9.5%的正偏倚。Cobas B 101和Variant II Turbo 2.0方法中显著正偏倚的发现与一些先前研究的观察结果一致,但与制造商声称的杂合HbE不存在干扰的说法相反。使用实验室方法(Variant II Turbo 2.0),我们的结果也清楚地显示了杂合HbE在相当宽的测量范围内的影响。实验室从业人员和临床医生应该熟悉他们所服务人群中流行的血红蛋白变异,并选择合适的HbA1c测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of heterozygous hemoglobin E on six commercial methods for hemoglobin A1c measurement
This study examined the impact of heterozygous HbE on HbA1c measurements by six commonly used commercial methods. The results were compared with those from a modified isotope-dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) reference laboratory method on a liquid chromatograph coupled with tandem mass spectrometer (LC-MS/MS). Twenty-three leftover samples of patients with heterozygous HbE (HbA1c range: 5.4–11.6%), and nineteen samples with normal hemoglobin (HbA1c range: 5.0–13.7%) were included. The selected commercial methods included the Tina-quant HbA1c Gen. 3 (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), Cobas B 101 (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), D100 (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA), Variant II Turbo HbA1c 2.0 (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA), DCA Vantage (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) and HbA1c Advanced (Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA, USA). With the exception of Cobas B 101 and the Variant II Turbo 2.0, the 95% confidence intervals of the Passing–Bablok regression lines between the results from the six commercial methods and the IDMS method overlapped. The latter suggested no statistically significant difference in results and hence no impact on HbA1c result despite the presence of heterozygous HbE. The method of Cobas B 101 gave positive bias at the range of concentrations examined (5.4–11.6%), while that of Variant II Turbo 2.0 gave positive bias at concentrations up to approximately 9.5%. The finding of significant positive bias in the methods of Cobas B 101 and Variant II Turbo 2.0 agrees with the observations of some previous studies, but is contrary to manufacturer’s claim indicating the absence of interference by heterozygous HbE. Our results also clearly showed the impact of heterozygous HbE across a fairly broad measurement range using a laboratory method (the Variant II Turbo 2.0). Laboratory practitioners and clinicians should familiarize themselves with prevailing hemoglobin variants in the population they serve and select the appropriate methods for HbA1c measurement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信