{"title":"EQA:矩阵中没有任何故障。罗氏Cobas c701的CRP偏倚研究。","authors":"Emma Stevenson, Chelsey Walsh, Sadie Thomas","doi":"10.1177/00045632231169151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Roche Cobas c Tina-quant C-Reactive Protein (CRP) IV method has shown persistent, significant negative bias compared to other methodologies in the UK NEQAS external quality assurance (EQA) scheme. The aim of this study was to compare CRP concentrations determined by this restandardized 4th generation assay with another commercially available method to assess the extent of any bias and impact on clinical cut-offs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CRP concentrations in 38 anonymized patient serum samples were determined by a particle-enhanced immunoturbidimetric assay on the Roche Cobas c701 module and a latex assay on the Beckman Coulter AU5800 analyser over a concentration range of 1-308 mg/L.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>97.4% samples analysed by the Roche Tina-quant CRP IV method demonstrated a negative bias compared to the Beckman AU latex method. The mean absolute bias was -4.12 mg/L (range: -19.13-10.93 mg/L; 95% CI: -17.25-9.01 mg/L). The mean relative difference was -15.5% (range: -40-4%; 95% CI: -33.03-1.94%). This bias was seen across the range of samples assayed, including at clinically significant cut-offs of 5 mg/L (-24% bias), 20 mg/L (-5%) and 100 mg/L (-13%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The negative bias of the Roche method demonstrated in the EQA scheme appears to reflect genuine differences in patient results, rather than an EQA matrix effect, despite re-standardization of the CRP assay. This report indicates that clinical cut-offs and reference ranges may be method-dependent, which should be reflected in published guidance and interpretation provided by laboratories.</p>","PeriodicalId":8005,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry","volume":" ","pages":"349-352"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EQA: There's not a glitch in the matrix. Investigation of CRP bias on the Roche Cobas c701.\",\"authors\":\"Emma Stevenson, Chelsey Walsh, Sadie Thomas\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00045632231169151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Roche Cobas c Tina-quant C-Reactive Protein (CRP) IV method has shown persistent, significant negative bias compared to other methodologies in the UK NEQAS external quality assurance (EQA) scheme. The aim of this study was to compare CRP concentrations determined by this restandardized 4th generation assay with another commercially available method to assess the extent of any bias and impact on clinical cut-offs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CRP concentrations in 38 anonymized patient serum samples were determined by a particle-enhanced immunoturbidimetric assay on the Roche Cobas c701 module and a latex assay on the Beckman Coulter AU5800 analyser over a concentration range of 1-308 mg/L.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>97.4% samples analysed by the Roche Tina-quant CRP IV method demonstrated a negative bias compared to the Beckman AU latex method. The mean absolute bias was -4.12 mg/L (range: -19.13-10.93 mg/L; 95% CI: -17.25-9.01 mg/L). The mean relative difference was -15.5% (range: -40-4%; 95% CI: -33.03-1.94%). This bias was seen across the range of samples assayed, including at clinically significant cut-offs of 5 mg/L (-24% bias), 20 mg/L (-5%) and 100 mg/L (-13%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The negative bias of the Roche method demonstrated in the EQA scheme appears to reflect genuine differences in patient results, rather than an EQA matrix effect, despite re-standardization of the CRP assay. This report indicates that clinical cut-offs and reference ranges may be method-dependent, which should be reflected in published guidance and interpretation provided by laboratories.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8005,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"349-352\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00045632231169151\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00045632231169151","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
EQA: There's not a glitch in the matrix. Investigation of CRP bias on the Roche Cobas c701.
Background: The Roche Cobas c Tina-quant C-Reactive Protein (CRP) IV method has shown persistent, significant negative bias compared to other methodologies in the UK NEQAS external quality assurance (EQA) scheme. The aim of this study was to compare CRP concentrations determined by this restandardized 4th generation assay with another commercially available method to assess the extent of any bias and impact on clinical cut-offs.
Methods: CRP concentrations in 38 anonymized patient serum samples were determined by a particle-enhanced immunoturbidimetric assay on the Roche Cobas c701 module and a latex assay on the Beckman Coulter AU5800 analyser over a concentration range of 1-308 mg/L.
Results: 97.4% samples analysed by the Roche Tina-quant CRP IV method demonstrated a negative bias compared to the Beckman AU latex method. The mean absolute bias was -4.12 mg/L (range: -19.13-10.93 mg/L; 95% CI: -17.25-9.01 mg/L). The mean relative difference was -15.5% (range: -40-4%; 95% CI: -33.03-1.94%). This bias was seen across the range of samples assayed, including at clinically significant cut-offs of 5 mg/L (-24% bias), 20 mg/L (-5%) and 100 mg/L (-13%).
Conclusion: The negative bias of the Roche method demonstrated in the EQA scheme appears to reflect genuine differences in patient results, rather than an EQA matrix effect, despite re-standardization of the CRP assay. This report indicates that clinical cut-offs and reference ranges may be method-dependent, which should be reflected in published guidance and interpretation provided by laboratories.
期刊介绍:
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry is the fully peer reviewed international journal of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine.
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry accepts papers that contribute to knowledge in all fields of laboratory medicine, especially those pertaining to the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of human disease. It publishes papers on clinical biochemistry, clinical audit, metabolic medicine, immunology, genetics, biotechnology, haematology, microbiology, computing and management where they have both biochemical and clinical relevance. Papers describing evaluation or implementation of commercial reagent kits or the performance of new analysers require substantial original information. Unless of exceptional interest and novelty, studies dealing with the redox status in various diseases are not generally considered within the journal''s scope. Studies documenting the association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with particular phenotypes will not normally be considered, given the greater strength of genome wide association studies (GWAS). Research undertaken in non-human animals will not be considered for publication in the Annals.
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry is also the official journal of NVKC (de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Klinische Chemie) and JSCC (Japan Society of Clinical Chemistry).