Dataset Information

A Risk Assessment of the Jaffe vs Enzymatic Method for Creatinine Measurement in an Outpatient Population.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Jaffe and enzymatic methods are the two most common methods for measuring serum creatinine. The Jaffe method is less expensive than the enzymatic method but is also more susceptible to interferences. Interferences can lead to misdiagnosis but interferences may vary by patient population. The overall risk associated with the Jaffe method depends on the probability of misclassification and the consequences of misclassification. This study assessed the risk associated with the Jaffe method in an outpatient population. We analyzed the discordance rate in the estimated glomerular filtration rate based on serum creatinine measurements obtained by the Jaffe and enzymatic method.

Methods

Method comparison and risk analysis. Five hundred twenty-nine eGFRs obtained by the Jaffe and enzymatic method were compared at four clinical decision limits. We determined the probability of discordance and the consequence of misclassification at each decision limit to evaluate the overall risk.

Results

We obtained 529 paired observations. Of these, 29 (5.5%) were discordant with respect to one of the decision limits (i.e. 15, 30, 45 or 60 ml/min/1.73m2). The magnitude of the differences (Jaffe result minus enzymatic result) were significant relative to analytical variation in 21 of the 29 (72%) of the discordant results. The magnitude of the differences were not significant relative to biological variation. The risk associated with misclassification was greatest at the 60 ml/min/1.73m2 decision limit because the probability of misclassification and the potential for adverse outcomes were greatest at that decision limit.

Conclusion

The Jaffe method is subject to bias due to interfering substances (loss of analytical specificity). The risk of misclassification is greatest at the 60 ml/min/1.73m2 decision limit; however, the risk of misclassification due to bias is much less than the risk of misclassification due to biological variation. The Jaffe method may pose low risk in selected populations if eGFR results near the 60 ml/min/1.73m2 decision limit are interpreted with caution.

SUBMITTER: Schmidt RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4657986 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years there has been a surge in the number of commercially available lactose-free variants of a wide variety of products. This presents an analytical challenge for the measurement of the residual lactose content in the presence of high levels of mono-, di-, and oligosaccharides.ResultsIn the current work, we describe the development of a novel enzymatic low-lactose determination method termed LOLAC (low lactose), which is based on an optimized glucose removal pre-treatment step followed by a sequential enzymatic assay that measures residual glucose and lactose in a single cuvette. Sensitivity was improved over existing enzymatic lactose assays through the extension of the typical glucose detection biochemical pathway to amplify the signal response. Selectivity for lactose in the presence of structurally similar oligosaccharides was provided by using a β-galactosidase with much improved selectivity over the analytical industry standards from Aspergillus oryzae and Escherichia coli (EcLacZ), coupled with a 'creep' calculation adjustment to account for any overestimation. The resulting enzymatic method was fully characterized in terms of its linear range (2.3-113 mg per 100 g), limit of detection (LOD) (0.13 mg per 100 g), limit of quantification (LOQ) (0.44 mg per 100 g) and reproducibility (≤ 3.2% coefficient of variation (CV)). A range of commercially available lactose-free samples were analyzed with spiking experiments and excellent recoveries were obtained. Lactose quantitation in lactose-free infant formula, a particularly challenging matrix, was carried out using the LOLAC method and the results compared favorably with those obtained from a United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) accredited laboratory employing quantitative high performance anion exchange chromatography - pulsed amperometric detection (HPAEC-PAD) analysis.ConclusionThe LOLAC assay is the first reported enzymatic method that accurately quantitates lactose in lactose-free samples. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of The Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Project description:Several different approaches are available to clinicians for determining prostate cancer (PCa) risk. The clinical validity of various PCa risk assessment methods utilizing single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) has been established; however, these SNP-based methods have not been compared. The objective of this study was to compare the three most commonly used SNP-based methods for PCa risk assessment. Participants were men (n = 1654) enrolled in a prospective study of PCa development. Genotypes of 59 PCa risk-associated SNPs were available in this cohort. Three methods of calculating SNP-based genetic risk scores (GRSs) were used for the evaluation of individual disease risk such as risk allele count (GRS-RAC), weighted risk allele count (GRS-wRAC), and population-standardized genetic risk score (GRS-PS). Mean GRSs were calculated, and performances were compared using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and positive predictive value (PPV). All SNP-based methods were found to be independently associated with PCa (all P < 0.05; hence their clinical validity). The mean GRSs in men with or without PCa using GRS-RAC were 55.15 and 53.46, respectively, using GRS-wRAC were 7.42 and 6.97, respectively, and using GRS-PS were 1.12 and 0.84, respectively (all P < 0.05 for differences between patients with or without PCa). All three SNP-based methods performed similarly in discriminating PCa from non-PCa based on AUC and in predicting PCa risk based on PPV (all P > 0.05 for comparisons between the three methods), and all three SNP-based methods had a significantly higher AUC than family history (all P < 0.05). Results from this study suggest that while the three most commonly used SNP-based methods performed similarly in discriminating PCa from non-PCa at the population level, GRS-PS is the method of choice for risk assessment at the individual level because its value (where 1.0 represents average population risk) can be easily interpreted regardless of the number of risk-associated SNPs used in the calculation.

Project description:BackgroundA convenient method to estimate the creatinine generation rate and measures of creatinine clearance in hemodialysis patients using formal kinetic modeling and standard pre- and postdialysis blood samples has not been described.MethodsWe used data from 366 dialysis sessions characterized during follow-up month 4 of the HEMO study, during which cross-dialyzer clearances for both urea and creatinine were available. Blood samples taken at 1?h into dialysis and 30?min and 60?min after dialysis were used to determine how well a two-pool kinetic model could predict creatinine concentrations and other kinetic parameters, including the creatinine generation rate. An extrarenal creatinine clearance of 0.038?l/kg/24?h was included in the model.ResultsDiffusive cross-dialyzer clearances of urea [230?(SD 37 mL/min] correlated well (R2?=?0.78) with creatinine clearances [164?(SD 30)?mL/min]. When the effective diffusion volume flow rate was set at 0.791 times the blood flow rate for the cross-dialyzer clearance measurements at 1?h into dialysis, the mean calculated volume of creatinine distribution averaged 29.6?(SD 7.2) L], compared with 31.6?(SD 7.0)?L for urea (P?<?0.01). The modeled creatinine generation rate [1183?(SD 463)?mg/day] averaged 100.1?% (SD 29; median 99.3) of that predicted in nondialysis patients by an anthropometric equation. A simplified method for modeling the creatinine generation rate using the urea distribution volume and urea dialyzer clearance without use of the postdialysis serum creatinine measurement gave results for creatinine generation rate [1187?(SD 475) mg/day; that closely matched the value calculated using the formally modeled value, R2?=?0.971].ConclusionsOur analysis confirms previous findings of similar distribution volumes for creatinine and urea. After taking extra-renal clearance into consideration, the creatinine generation rate in dialysis patients is similar to that in nondialysis patients. A simplified method based on urea clearance and urea distribution volume not requiring a postdialysis serum creatinine measurement can be used to yield creatinine generation rates that closely match those determined from standard modeling.