Annals of clinical biochemistry · 2023
Hepcidin analysis in pneumonia: Comparison of immunoassay and LC-MS/MS.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Oppen Kjersti, Brede Cato, Skadberg Øyvind, Steinsvik Trude, Holter Jan Cato, Michelsen Annika E, Heggelund Lars
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The iron-regulatory hormone hepcidin is a promising biomarker to differentiate anaemia of inflammation from iron deficiency. Plasma hepcidin concentrations increase substantially during inflammation, and the amount of smaller, non-biologically active isoforms of hepcidin increase in inflammatory conditions. These smaller isoforms are measured in some, but not all analytical methods. Thus, we evaluated the comparability of two analytical methods with different isoform selectivity during and after acute-phase pneumonia as a highly inflammatory model disease.
METHODS: Blood samples from a cohort of 267 hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia patients collected at admission and a 6-week follow-up were analysed. Hepcidin was measured in plasma by an immunoassay, which recognizes all hepcidin isoforms, and a liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), which selectively measures the bioactive hepcidin-25. Additionally, a subset of serum samples was analysed by LC-MS/MS.
RESULTS: Hepcidin measurements by immunoassay were higher compared with LC-MS/MS. The relative mean difference of hepcidin plasma concentrations between the two analytical methods was larger in admission samples than in follow-up samples (admission samples <200 ng/mL: 37%, admission samples >200 ng/mL: 78%, follow-up samples >10 ng/mL: 22%). During acute-phase pneumonia, serum concentrations were on average 22% lower than plasma concentrations when measured by LC-MS/MS.
CONCLUSIONS: Immunoassay measured higher hepcidin concentrations compared with LC-MS/MS, with more pronounced differences in high-concentration samples during acute-phase pneumonia. These findings should be considered in local method validations and in future harmonization and standardization optimization of hepcidin measurements.
METHODS: Blood samples from a cohort of 267 hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia patients collected at admission and a 6-week follow-up were analysed. Hepcidin was measured in plasma by an immunoassay, which recognizes all hepcidin isoforms, and a liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), which selectively measures the bioactive hepcidin-25. Additionally, a subset of serum samples was analysed by LC-MS/MS.
RESULTS: Hepcidin measurements by immunoassay were higher compared with LC-MS/MS. The relative mean difference of hepcidin plasma concentrations between the two analytical methods was larger in admission samples than in follow-up samples (admission samples <200 ng/mL: 37%, admission samples >200 ng/mL: 78%, follow-up samples >10 ng/mL: 22%). During acute-phase pneumonia, serum concentrations were on average 22% lower than plasma concentrations when measured by LC-MS/MS.
CONCLUSIONS: Immunoassay measured higher hepcidin concentrations compared with LC-MS/MS, with more pronounced differences in high-concentration samples during acute-phase pneumonia. These findings should be considered in local method validations and in future harmonization and standardization optimization of hepcidin measurements.