Comparison of serum immunoglobulin and complement assays across three automated immunochemistry platforms
Nội dung chính của bài viết
Tóm tắt
Serum immunoglobulins (IgA, IgG, IgM) and complement components (C3, C4) are essential biomarkers widely used in clinical practice to evaluate immune function and support the diagnosis of inflammatory and immunological disorders. This study assessed the concordance of quantitative results for these markers across three automated analytical platforms Cobas Pro (Roche Diagnostics), Atellica Solution (Siemens Healthineers), and AU5800 (Beckman Coulter), using pediatric serum samples. Correlation analysis revealed very strong linear relationships between the systems (r = 0.90 - 0.995). However, significant proportional biases were observed, particularly for C4, with slope values of 1.3226 (Cobas Pro vs. AU5800) and 1.3141 (Atellica vs. AU5800), indicating a trend of higher C4 values reported by AU5800. Bland-Altman analysis indicated the highest absolute bias for C4, followed by C3 and IgM, confirming the presence of clinically relevant and systematic differences. These findings suggest that results are not directly interchangeable without proper adjustment. Establishing system-specific reference intervals or applying validated conversion factors is necessary to ensure accuracy in clinical interpretation.
Chi tiết bài viết
Từ khóa
Immunoglobulin, complement, immunoturbidimetry, method comparison, children
Tài liệu tham khảo
2. Ricklin D, Hajishengallis G, Yang K, et al. Complement: a key system for immune surveillance and homeostasis. Nat Immunol. 2010;11(9):785-797.
3. Walport MJ. Complement. First of two parts. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(14):1058-1066.
4. Ballow M. Primary immunodeficiency disorders: antibody deficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002;109(4):581-591.
5. Tighe PJ, Ryder RR, Todd I, et al. ELISA in the multiplex era: potentials and pitfalls. Proteomics Clin Appl. 2015;9(3-4):406-422.
6. Carvalho, Lídia, et al. “Nephelometry vs. Immunoturbidimetry assay: Analytical performance on IgG subclasses.” Journal of Immunological Methods 532 (2024): 113725.
7. Roth J, Taatjes DJ. Immunodetection methods: overview and challenges. In: Cell and Tissue Imaging. Springer, 2016.
8. Denham, Elizabeth, et al. Evaluation of immunoturbidimetric specific protein methods using the Architect ci8200: comparison with immunonephelometry. Annals of clinical biochemistry 44.6 (2007): 529-536.
9. Qin, Xuzhen, et al. A multicenter reference intervals study for specific proteins in China. Medicine. 2015;94(49):e2211.
10. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Measurement Procedure Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples; Approved Guideline-Third Edition. CLSI document EP09-A3. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2013.
11. EFLM Biological Variation Database. Accessed: https://biologicalvariation.eu/
12. Secchiero S, Sciacovelli L, Plebani M. Harmonization of units and reference intervals of plasma proteins: state of the art from an External Quality Assessment Scheme. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM). 2018);57(1):95-105.
13. Mali B, Armbruster D, Serediak E, et al. Comparison of immunoturbidimetric and immunonephelometric assays for specific proteins. Clinical biochemistry. 2009;42(15):1568-1571.
14. Denham E, Mohn B, Tucker L, et al. Evaluation of immunoturbidimetric specific protein methods using the Architect ci8200: comparison with immunonephelometry. Annals of clinical biochemistry. 2007;44(6):529-536.
15. Roth J, Taatjes DJ. Principles and pitfalls in immunohistochemistry. In: Immunohistochemistry: Essential Elements and Beyond. Springer; 2010;41-58.