Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

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

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 51, Issue 6

Issues

Switching between parathormone (PTH) assays: the impact on the diagnosis of renal osteodystrophy

Gabriella Bekő / Henriett Butz
  • Department of Laboratory Medicine Institute, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
  • Molecular Medicine Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Klára Berta / András Tislér / Ferenc Olajos / Barna Vásárhelyi
  • Department of Laboratory Medicine Institute, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
  • Research Group of Pediatrics and Nephrology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Attila Patócs
Published Online: 2012-12-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2012-0485

Abstract

Background: Clinical guidelines for decision-making in chronic kidney disease (CKD) consider parathormone (PTH) levels. The measured PTH values differ if novel full length PTH(1-84) assays are used instead of earlier intact iPTH assays. In this study we analyzed how the classification of CKD patients alters when iPTH assays are switched to PTH(1-84) assays.

Methods: Plasma samples were collected prior to dialysis sessions from 110 consecutive CKD patients on maintenance hemodialysis. PTH levels were determined with iPTH assays (Elecsys, Architect and DiaSorin Liaison N-tact) and PTH(1-84) assays (Elecsys and Liaison). Using KDIGO guidelines patients were classified as being below, above and in the recommended target range (RTR) of PTH. The results of classification with different assays were evaluated and, a novel calculation method of RTR was implemented.

Results: The prevalence of patients with PTH in RTR is comparable with each assay, but the individual patients differed. PTH(1-84) Elecsys and Liaison assays classified more patients as being below RTR than iPTH Elecsys and Architect but not Liaison N-tact assay (27.3%, 22.7% vs. 41%, 31.8%, and 36.4%, respectively). In turn, PTH(1-84) Elecsys and Liaison assays identified less CKD patients with PTH above the RTR than iPTH except N-tact assays (6.4%, 10% vs. 16.3%, 19%, and 6.3%, respectively). Using our calculation method, our discrimination values for PTH(1-84) assays to achieve classification identical to that with iPTH Elecsys were lower than those recommended by the manufacturer.

Conclusions: Current guidelines for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in CKD should consider the type of assays used for PTH measurement. Each laboratory should assess its own RTR for PTH tests to achieve comparable classification. The presented calculation is simple, it mimics an everyday situation, switching from one assay to another one, and provides useful RTR values for PTH tests.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: chronic kidney disease; dialysis; intact PTH; parathormone (PTH) measurement; PTH(1-84); secondary hyperparathyroidism

References

  • 1.

    Friedman PA, Goodman WG. PTH(1-84)/PTH(7–84): a balance of power. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2006;290:F975–84.Google Scholar

  • 2.

    Stokes FJ, Ivanov P, Bailey LM, Fraser WD. The effects of sampling procedures and storage conditions on short-term stability of blood-based biochemical markers of bone metabolism. Clin Chem 2011;57:138–40.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    Sturgeon CM, Seth J. Why do immunoassays for tumour markers give differing results? A view from the UK National External Quality Assessment Schemes. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1996;34:755–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Joly D, Drueke TB, Alberti C, Houillier P, Lawson-Body E, Martin KJ, et al. Variation in serum and plasma PTH levels in second-generation assays in hemodialysis patients: a cross-sectional study. Am J Kidney Dis 2008;51:987–95.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Torres PU. The need for reliable serum parathyroid hormone measurements. Kidney Int 2006;70:240–3.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance 117. Cinacalcet for the Treatment of Secondary Hyperparathyroidism in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease on Maintenance Dialysis Therapy, 2007. Available from: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11608/33857/33857.pdf. Accessed 10 January, 2011.

  • 7.

    Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD-MBD Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). Kidney Int 2009;113:S1–130.Google Scholar

  • 8.

    Steddon S, Sharples E. Renal Association Clinical Practice Guideline: CKD-Mineral and Bone Disorders (CKD-MBD), 2011. Available from: http://www.renal.org/clinical/GuidelinesSection/CKD-MBD.aspx. Accessed 10 September.

  • 9.

    Levey AS, Coresh J, Balk E, Kausz AT, Levin A, Steffes MW, et al. National kidney foundation practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Ann Intern Med 2003;139:137–47.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    KDOQI clinical practice guidelines for bone metabolism and disease in chronic kidney disease 2003. Am J Kidney Dis 2003;42:S1–201.Google Scholar

  • 11.

    Waller S, Ridout D, Cantor T, Rees L. Differences between “intact” PTH and 1-84 PTH assays in chronic renal failure and dialysis. Pediatr Nephrol 2005;20:197–9.Google Scholar

  • 12.

    Gao P, Scheibel S, D’Amour P, John MR, Rao SD, Schmidt-Gayk H, et al. Development of a novel immunoradiometric assay exclusively for biologically active whole parathyroid hormone 1-84: implications for improvement of accurate assessment of parathyroid function. J Bone Miner Res 2001;16:605–14.Google Scholar

  • 13.

    John MR, Goodman WG, Gao P, Cantor TL, Salusky IB, Jüppner H. A novel immunoradiometric assay detects full-length human PTH but not amino-terminally truncated fragments: implications for PTH measurements in renal failure. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:4287–90.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    La’ulu SL, Roberts WL. Performance characteristics of six intact parathyroid hormone assays. Am J Clin Pathol 2010;134: 930–8.Google Scholar

  • 15.

    Taniguchi M, Tanaka M, Hamano T, Nakanishi S, Fujii H, Kato H, et al. Comparison between whole and intact parathyroid hormone assays. Ther Apher Dial 2011;15(Suppl 1): 42–9.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    Almond A, Ellis AR, Walker SW. On behalf of the scottish clinical biochemistry managed diagnostic network. Current parathyroid hormone immunoassays do not adequately meet the needs of patients with chronic kidney disease. Ann Clin Biochem 2012;49:63–7.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 17.

    Sturgeon CM, Sprague SM, Metcalfe W. Variation in parathyroid hormone immunoassay results – a critical governance issue in the management of chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011;26:3440–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 18.

    Souberbielle J-C, Cavalier E, Jean G. Interpretation of serum parathyroid hormone concentrations in dialysis patients: what do the KDIGO guidelines change for the clinical laboratory? Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:769–74.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 19.

    Cantor T, Yang Z, Caraiani N, Ilamathi E. Lack of comparability of intact parathyroid hormone measurements among commercial assays for end-stage renal disease patients: implication for treatment decisions. Clin Chem 2006;52: 1771–6.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 20.

    Cavalier E, Delanaye P, Vranken L, Bekaert AC, Carlisi A, Chapelle JP, et al. Interpretation of serum PTH concentrations with different kits in dialysis patients according to the KDIGO guidelines: importance of the reference (normal) values. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012;27:1950–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Dr. Attila Patócs, MD, MSc, PhD, Department of Laboratory Medicine Institute, Central Isotope Laboratory, Semmelweis University 1088 Budapest, Szentkirályi u. 46, Hungary, Phone: +36 1 2660926 ext 55577, Fax: +36 1 2664616


Received: 2012-07-23

Accepted: 2012-11-07

Published Online: 2012-12-08

Published in Print: 2013-06-01


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Volume 51, Issue 6, Pages 1251–1256, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2012-0485.

Export Citation

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston.Get Permission

Supplementary Article Materials

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Markus J. Kemper and Michael van Husen
Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 2014, Volume 26, Number 2, Page 180

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in