Use of a reference material proposed by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine to evaluate analytical methods for the …

SM Marcovina, JJ Albers, AM Scanu… - Clinical …, 2000 - academic.oup.com
SM Marcovina, JJ Albers, AM Scanu, H Kennedy, F Giaculli, K Berg, R Couderc, F Dati…
Clinical chemistry, 2000academic.oup.com
Background: As part of the NIH/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Contract for the
Standardization of Lipoprotein (a)[Lp (a)] Measurements, a study was performed in
collaboration with the IFCC Working Group for the Standardization of Lp (a) Assays. The
aims of the study, performed with the participation of 16 manufacturers and 6 research
laboratories, were to evaluate the IFCC proposed reference material (PRM) for its ability to
transfer an accuracy-based value to the immunoassay calibrators and to assess …
Abstract
Background: As part of the NIH/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Contract for the Standardization of Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] Measurements, a study was performed in collaboration with the IFCC Working Group for the Standardization of Lp(a) Assays. The aims of the study, performed with the participation of 16 manufacturers and 6 research laboratories, were to evaluate the IFCC proposed reference material (PRM) for its ability to transfer an accuracy-based value to the immunoassay calibrators and to assess concordance in results among different methods.
Methods: Two different purified Lp(a) preparations with protein mass concentrations determined by amino acid analysis were used to calibrate the reference method. A Lp(a) value of 107 nmol/L was assigned to PRM. After uniformity of calibration was demonstrated in the 22 evaluated systems, Lp(a) was measured on 30 fresh-frozen sera covering a wide range of Lp(a) values and apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] sizes.
Results: The among-laboratory CVs for these samples (6–31%) were, in general, higher than those obtained for PRM (2.8%) and the quality-control samples (14%, 12%, and 9%, respectively), reflecting the broad range of apo(a) sizes in the 30 samples and the sensitivity of most methods to apo(a) size heterogeneity. Thus, although all of the assays were uniformly calibrated through the use of PRM, no uniformity in results was achieved for the isoform-sensitive methods.
Conclusions: Linear regression analyses indicated that to various degrees, apo(a) size heterogeneity affects the outcome of the immunochemical methods used to measure Lp(a). We have also shown that the inaccuracy of Lp(a) values determined by methods sensitive to apo(a) size significantly affects the assessment of individual risk status for coronary artery disease.
Oxford University Press