Cargando…

Analytical evaluation of three soluble transferrin receptor measurement systems for diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND: Soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR) is a promising indicator of iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Here, we investigated the application value of sTfR assays based on three different methods for the diagnosis of IDA. METHODS: The sTfR concentrations in two groups of patient specimens with hig...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hou, Li'an, Lu, Jun, Jiang, Xianyong, Guo, Xiuzhi, Ma, Chaochao, Cheng, Xinqi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7439353/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32320096
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23342
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR) is a promising indicator of iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Here, we investigated the application value of sTfR assays based on three different methods for the diagnosis of IDA. METHODS: The sTfR concentrations in two groups of patient specimens with high‐level and low‐level sTfR concentrations and in quality control materials were measured four times a day for five consecutive days to evaluate the precision of the three methods. We selected patients with IDA, anemia of chronic disease (ACD), or chronic diseases with iron deficiency anemia (CIDA), and apparently healthy subjects, and measured the serum sTfR concentrations in all subjects using the three different methods. The cutoff points for an IDA diagnosis using the three assays and their corresponding clinical sensitivities and specificities were calculated by receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: For the diagnosis of IDA, the cutoff points of sTfR measured by the chemiluminescent, immunoturbidimetric, and immunonephelometric assays were 2.91, 6.70, and 2.48 mg/L, respectively. The corresponding sensitivities were 85.59%, 85.59%, and 85.59%, the specificities were 91.47%, 90.31%, and 90.70%, and area under the curve was 0.943, 0.944, and 0.936, respectively. The sTfR concentrations measured by the different methods were significantly higher in the IDA and CIDA groups than in the other two groups (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The sTfR based on the three different measurement methods presented promising analytical performances and met the clinical requirements for sensitivity and specificity. However, the different measurement methods had markedly different cutoff points for IDA diagnosis, which should be critically considered in clinical practice.