Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Editorial Board Member: Gillery, Philippe / Kazmierczak, Steven / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Schlattmann, Peter / Whitfield, John B.

12 Issues per year

40% increased IMPACT FACTOR 2012: 3.009
Rank 5 out of 31 in category Medical Laboratory Technology in the 2012 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition

VolumeIssuePage

Issues

Comparing Different Methods for Homocysteine Determination

Bruno Zappacosta / Silvia Persichilli / Donata Scribano / Angelo Minucci / Daniele Lazzaro / Pasquale De Sole / Bruno Giardina

Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Volume 40, Issue 11, Pages 1139–1142, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: 10.1515/cclm.2002.200, June 2005

Publication History:
Published Online:
2005-06-01

Abstract

Slightly elevated values of homocysteine are commonly associated with thromboembolic diseases, while high values can be found in patients with congenital metabolic defects or nutritional problems. The clinical use of homocysteine as an independent marker of cardiovascular disease was limited in the past by technical problems with its measurement, the instrumentation (HPLC, radioenzymatic assays, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, etc.) and the necessary skills required. Commercially available immunoassays now permit a simpler and more rapid measurement of homocysteine, that is more suitable for routine clinical laboratories; in this paper we analyze the results obtained by using three fully automated methods for homocysteine determination (Abbott IMx immunoassay, Abbott AxSYM immunoassay and Immulite 2000 homocysteine immunoassay) and their correlation with the widely used HPLC method.

The results clearly indicate that all three automated immunochemical methods correlate well with the HPLC method (slope 0.97–1.03; intercept 0.95–1.91 with a recovery above 95% for all three methods).

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.