Cargando…

Beyond the method change in clinical practice: evaluation of insulin-like growth factor I assay

OBJECTIVES: Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) is the preferred biomarker for diagnosing and monitoring growth-related disorders but its serum quantification presents several difficulties since different IGF-I assays still leads to different IGF-I concentrations, especially when results are either...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sienes Bailo, Paula, Fabre Estremera, Marta, Cuenca Alcocel, José, César Márquez, María Ángeles
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: De Gruyter 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10197437/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37363432
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/almed-2021-0069
_version_ 1785044551939915776
author Sienes Bailo, Paula
Fabre Estremera, Marta
Cuenca Alcocel, José
César Márquez, María Ángeles
author_facet Sienes Bailo, Paula
Fabre Estremera, Marta
Cuenca Alcocel, José
César Márquez, María Ángeles
author_sort Sienes Bailo, Paula
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) is the preferred biomarker for diagnosing and monitoring growth-related disorders but its serum quantification presents several difficulties since different IGF-I assays still leads to different IGF-I concentrations, especially when results are either above or below the normal range. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study between November and December 2020 at a tertiary University Hospital with 212 serum samples to determine the analytical performance of the IGF-I assay on the Cobas e411 (Roche Diagnostics) and compare it with that of the Immulite 2000XPi (Siemens). RESULTS: In this work, we report for the first time the existence of discrepancies between IGF-I levels measured by Immulite 2000XPi and Cobas e411. Deming regression model provided a slope of 1.570 (95% CI: 1.395–1.745) and an intercept of −58.591 (95% CI: −89.151 to −28.030), with R(2)=0.967 and average bias of +53.061 with overestimation of IGF-I. It was found that Cobas e411 provides abnormally high IGF-I concentrations, but further studies are required to elucidate the cause of the discrepancies. CONCLUSIONS: Our data can alert clinicians and laboratory professionals of this situation and avoid misinterpretation of increased IGF-I levels as a therapeutic failure rather than as a problem associated with this method change.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10197437
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher De Gruyter
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101974372023-06-23 Beyond the method change in clinical practice: evaluation of insulin-like growth factor I assay Sienes Bailo, Paula Fabre Estremera, Marta Cuenca Alcocel, José César Márquez, María Ángeles Adv Lab Med Short Communication OBJECTIVES: Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) is the preferred biomarker for diagnosing and monitoring growth-related disorders but its serum quantification presents several difficulties since different IGF-I assays still leads to different IGF-I concentrations, especially when results are either above or below the normal range. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study between November and December 2020 at a tertiary University Hospital with 212 serum samples to determine the analytical performance of the IGF-I assay on the Cobas e411 (Roche Diagnostics) and compare it with that of the Immulite 2000XPi (Siemens). RESULTS: In this work, we report for the first time the existence of discrepancies between IGF-I levels measured by Immulite 2000XPi and Cobas e411. Deming regression model provided a slope of 1.570 (95% CI: 1.395–1.745) and an intercept of −58.591 (95% CI: −89.151 to −28.030), with R(2)=0.967 and average bias of +53.061 with overestimation of IGF-I. It was found that Cobas e411 provides abnormally high IGF-I concentrations, but further studies are required to elucidate the cause of the discrepancies. CONCLUSIONS: Our data can alert clinicians and laboratory professionals of this situation and avoid misinterpretation of increased IGF-I levels as a therapeutic failure rather than as a problem associated with this method change. De Gruyter 2022-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10197437/ /pubmed/37363432 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/almed-2021-0069 Text en © 2022 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Short Communication
Sienes Bailo, Paula
Fabre Estremera, Marta
Cuenca Alcocel, José
César Márquez, María Ángeles
Beyond the method change in clinical practice: evaluation of insulin-like growth factor I assay
title Beyond the method change in clinical practice: evaluation of insulin-like growth factor I assay
title_full Beyond the method change in clinical practice: evaluation of insulin-like growth factor I assay
title_fullStr Beyond the method change in clinical practice: evaluation of insulin-like growth factor I assay
title_full_unstemmed Beyond the method change in clinical practice: evaluation of insulin-like growth factor I assay
title_short Beyond the method change in clinical practice: evaluation of insulin-like growth factor I assay
title_sort beyond the method change in clinical practice: evaluation of insulin-like growth factor i assay
topic Short Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10197437/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37363432
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/almed-2021-0069
work_keys_str_mv AT sienesbailopaula beyondthemethodchangeinclinicalpracticeevaluationofinsulinlikegrowthfactoriassay
AT fabreestremeramarta beyondthemethodchangeinclinicalpracticeevaluationofinsulinlikegrowthfactoriassay
AT cuencaalcoceljose beyondthemethodchangeinclinicalpracticeevaluationofinsulinlikegrowthfactoriassay
AT cesarmarquezmariaangeles beyondthemethodchangeinclinicalpracticeevaluationofinsulinlikegrowthfactoriassay