Hyaluronic Acid Assays

Turbidimetric or Enzyme-Based Immune Assay? A Method Comparison Study

Theis S Itenov, Nikolai S Kirkby, Morten H Bestle, Anna C Nilsson, Erland J Erlandsen, Lars Peters, Jens-Ulrik Jensen

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

BACKGROUD: Hyaluronic acid (HA) is proposed as a marker of functional liver capacity. The aim of the present study was to compare a new turbidimetric assay for measuring HA with the current standard method.

METHODS: HA was measured by a particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay (PETIA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in a 40-sample dilution series and 39 intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Agreement was assessed with Bland-Altman's method.

RESULTS: In the ICU patients, the median HA concentration was 159.0 ng/ml (interquartile range (IQR) 117.5-362.5 ng/ml) with ELISA and 157.5 ng/ml (IQR 92.5-359.6 ng/ml) with PETIA. The mean difference was 12.88 ng/ml (95% CI, -4.3 to 30.1 ng/ml, P = 0.14) and the 95% limits of agreement were -91.17 to 116.9 ng/ml. In the dilution series, the mean difference was -59.26 ng/ml (95% CI, -74.68 to 43.84 ng/ml, P < 0.0001) and the 95% limits of agreement were 35.23 to -153.8 ng/ml.

CONCLUSION: We found random variation between the PETIA and ELISA test that could affect performance in a clinical context, but only to a lesser extent in a research context. The new clinical biochemistry assay for HA determination will allow for large studies of the clinical utility of HA.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis
Vol/bind30
Udgave nummer5
Sider (fra-til)524–528
ISSN0887-8013
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2016

Fingeraftryk

Hyaluronic Acid
Assays
Immunosorbents
Enzymes
Immunoassay
Intensive care units
Dilution
Intensive Care Units
Biochemistry
Liver
Research

Citer dette

Itenov, Theis S ; Kirkby, Nikolai S ; Bestle, Morten H ; Nilsson, Anna C ; Erlandsen, Erland J ; Peters, Lars ; Jensen, Jens-Ulrik. / Hyaluronic Acid Assays : Turbidimetric or Enzyme-Based Immune Assay? A Method Comparison Study. I: Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis. 2016 ; Bind 30, Nr. 5. s. 524–528.
@article{55b1ab9695f4401a8acd2a0f644bd4de,
title = "Hyaluronic Acid Assays: Turbidimetric or Enzyme-Based Immune Assay? A Method Comparison Study",
abstract = "BACKGROUD: Hyaluronic acid (HA) is proposed as a marker of functional liver capacity. The aim of the present study was to compare a new turbidimetric assay for measuring HA with the current standard method.METHODS: HA was measured by a particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay (PETIA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in a 40-sample dilution series and 39 intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Agreement was assessed with Bland-Altman's method.RESULTS: In the ICU patients, the median HA concentration was 159.0 ng/ml (interquartile range (IQR) 117.5-362.5 ng/ml) with ELISA and 157.5 ng/ml (IQR 92.5-359.6 ng/ml) with PETIA. The mean difference was 12.88 ng/ml (95{\%} CI, -4.3 to 30.1 ng/ml, P = 0.14) and the 95{\%} limits of agreement were -91.17 to 116.9 ng/ml. In the dilution series, the mean difference was -59.26 ng/ml (95{\%} CI, -74.68 to 43.84 ng/ml, P < 0.0001) and the 95{\%} limits of agreement were 35.23 to -153.8 ng/ml.CONCLUSION: We found random variation between the PETIA and ELISA test that could affect performance in a clinical context, but only to a lesser extent in a research context. The new clinical biochemistry assay for HA determination will allow for large studies of the clinical utility of HA.",
keywords = "Journal Article",
author = "Itenov, {Theis S} and Kirkby, {Nikolai S} and Bestle, {Morten H} and Nilsson, {Anna C} and Erlandsen, {Erland J} and Lars Peters and Jens-Ulrik Jensen",
note = "{\circledC} 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1002/jcla.21897",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "524–528",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis",
issn = "0887-8013",
publisher = "JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.",
number = "5",

}

Hyaluronic Acid Assays : Turbidimetric or Enzyme-Based Immune Assay? A Method Comparison Study. / Itenov, Theis S; Kirkby, Nikolai S; Bestle, Morten H; Nilsson, Anna C; Erlandsen, Erland J; Peters, Lars; Jensen, Jens-Ulrik.

I: Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, Bind 30, Nr. 5, 2016, s. 524–528.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hyaluronic Acid Assays

T2 - Turbidimetric or Enzyme-Based Immune Assay? A Method Comparison Study

AU - Itenov, Theis S

AU - Kirkby, Nikolai S

AU - Bestle, Morten H

AU - Nilsson, Anna C

AU - Erlandsen, Erland J

AU - Peters, Lars

AU - Jensen, Jens-Ulrik

N1 - © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - BACKGROUD: Hyaluronic acid (HA) is proposed as a marker of functional liver capacity. The aim of the present study was to compare a new turbidimetric assay for measuring HA with the current standard method.METHODS: HA was measured by a particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay (PETIA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in a 40-sample dilution series and 39 intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Agreement was assessed with Bland-Altman's method.RESULTS: In the ICU patients, the median HA concentration was 159.0 ng/ml (interquartile range (IQR) 117.5-362.5 ng/ml) with ELISA and 157.5 ng/ml (IQR 92.5-359.6 ng/ml) with PETIA. The mean difference was 12.88 ng/ml (95% CI, -4.3 to 30.1 ng/ml, P = 0.14) and the 95% limits of agreement were -91.17 to 116.9 ng/ml. In the dilution series, the mean difference was -59.26 ng/ml (95% CI, -74.68 to 43.84 ng/ml, P < 0.0001) and the 95% limits of agreement were 35.23 to -153.8 ng/ml.CONCLUSION: We found random variation between the PETIA and ELISA test that could affect performance in a clinical context, but only to a lesser extent in a research context. The new clinical biochemistry assay for HA determination will allow for large studies of the clinical utility of HA.

AB - BACKGROUD: Hyaluronic acid (HA) is proposed as a marker of functional liver capacity. The aim of the present study was to compare a new turbidimetric assay for measuring HA with the current standard method.METHODS: HA was measured by a particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay (PETIA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in a 40-sample dilution series and 39 intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Agreement was assessed with Bland-Altman's method.RESULTS: In the ICU patients, the median HA concentration was 159.0 ng/ml (interquartile range (IQR) 117.5-362.5 ng/ml) with ELISA and 157.5 ng/ml (IQR 92.5-359.6 ng/ml) with PETIA. The mean difference was 12.88 ng/ml (95% CI, -4.3 to 30.1 ng/ml, P = 0.14) and the 95% limits of agreement were -91.17 to 116.9 ng/ml. In the dilution series, the mean difference was -59.26 ng/ml (95% CI, -74.68 to 43.84 ng/ml, P < 0.0001) and the 95% limits of agreement were 35.23 to -153.8 ng/ml.CONCLUSION: We found random variation between the PETIA and ELISA test that could affect performance in a clinical context, but only to a lesser extent in a research context. The new clinical biochemistry assay for HA determination will allow for large studies of the clinical utility of HA.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1002/jcla.21897

DO - 10.1002/jcla.21897

M3 - Journal article

VL - 30

SP - 524

EP - 528

JO - Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis

JF - Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis

SN - 0887-8013

IS - 5

ER -