Calibration of the Siemens Cystatin C Immunoassay Has Changed over Time

Clinical ChemistryUppsala UniversityUppsala, Sweden.
Clinical Chemistry (Impact Factor: 7.77). 03/2011; 57(5):777-8. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2010.159848
Source: PubMed
Download full-text


Available from: Anders Larsson, Feb 02, 2015
  • Clinical Chemistry 06/2011; 57(8):1209-11. DOI:10.1373/clinchem.2011.164798 · 7.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Serum creatinine is universally used to assess renal function in clinical practice. Creatinine and changes in serum creatinine are used to define acute kidney injury and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) in patients with progressive liver disease. In addition, creatinine is a key variable in the calculation used to determine priority for liver transplantation in many countries. As there is no universal standardized creatinine assay, there is variation in creatinine determinations between laboratory assays, compounded by assay interference due to chromogens, including bilirubin. This leads to patients with the same actual renal function potentially being offered different treatment options, in terms of access to therapy for HRS and priority waiting time for liver transplantation. Alternative methods for assessing renal function either also tend to overestimate renal function or are too time consuming and expensive to provide practical alternatives for standard clinical practice. Standardization of creatinine assays with readily available reference standards would help minimize interlaboratory variation; of the current creatinine assays, enzymatic creatinine appears more accurate, but even this is inaccurate at high bilirubin concentrations. Further work is required to determine whether interpatient variation can be reduced by correcting creatinine and cystatin measurements for muscle mass.
    Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 06/2011; 26(9):2735-42. DOI:10.1093/ndt/gfr354 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cystatin C (CysC) is a promising marker of GFR. Several equations have been derived to estimate GFR from its serum concentration. Heterogeneity in the performance of these equations exists in validation studies even when the same CysC assay from the same manufacturer is utilized. This study was designed to examine the differences in CysC and GFR estimation (eGFR) using Siemens' nephelometric immunoassay and the Mayo Clinic equation. The ability of the eGFRs to predict measured GFR was also examined. Ninety-seven split samples were sent to laboratories at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in Ottawa, Canada, and at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. The mean CHEO CysC was 0.17 mg/L (10%) lower than the mean Mayo Clinic CysC. Using the Mayo Clinic equation, the mean eGFR difference was 7.2 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (15%). Approximately 36% of the results agreed within 10%, while 13% were discordant by greater than 30%. Larger absolute differences in mean eGFR between the two laboratories were found in the subgroup with CysC less than 1.41 mg/L as compared with the subgroup greater than 1.41 mg/L (9.5 versus 5.0 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)). Correction of CHEO values to the Mayo Clinic did not improve GFR estimation. Significant differences in CysC measurement exist between laboratories using the same assay by the same manufacturer and these lead to clinically relevant differences in GFR estimation. This interlaboratory variability needs to be recognized when interpreting and comparing CysC and eGFR results.
    Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 07/2011; 6(9):2150-6. DOI:10.2215/CJN.00130111 · 5.25 Impact Factor