Specificity Characteristics of 7 Commercial Creatinine Measurement Procedures by Enzymatic and Jaffe Method Principles

Abstract

BACKGROUND Standardized calibration does not change a creatinine measurement procedure's susceptibility to potentially interfering substances. METHODS We obtained individual residual serum or plasma samples (n = 365) from patients with 19 different disease categories associated with potentially interfering substances and from healthy controls. Additional sera at 0.9 mg/dL (80 μmol/L) and 3.8 mg/dL (336 μmol/L) creatinine were supplemented with acetoacetate, acetone, ascorbate, and pyruvate. We measured samples by 4 enzymatic and 3 Jaffe commercially available procedures and by a liquid chromatography/isotope dilution/mass spectrometry measurement procedure against which biases were determined. RESULTS The number of instances when 3 or more results in a disease category had biases greater than the limits of acceptability was 28 of 57 (49%) for Jaffe and 14 of 76 (18%) for enzymatic procedures. For the aggregate group of 59 diabetes samples with increased β-hydroxybutyrate, glucose, or glycosylated hemoglobin (Hb A1c), the enzymatic procedures had 10 biased results of 236 (4.2%) compared with 89 of 177 (50.3%) for the Jaffe procedures, and these interferences were highly procedure dependent. For supplemented sera, interferences were observed in 11 of 24 (46%) of groups for Jaffe and 8 of 32 (25%) of groups for enzymatic procedures and were different at low or high creatinine concentrations. CONCLUSIONS There were differences in both magnitude and direction of bias among measurement procedures, whether enzymatic or Jaffe. The influence of interfering substances was less frequent with the enzymatic procedures, but no procedure was unaffected. The details of implementation of a method principle influenced its susceptibility to potential interfering substances.

Adolescent Type 1 Diabetes Cardio-Renal Intervention Trial (AdDIT): Urinary Screening and Baseline Biochemical and Cardiovascular Assessments

“…Between-batch imprecision (n = 48) was 2.6% at 6.89 mmol/L and 3.3% at 17.4 mmol/L. Plasma creatinine was measured using a reference stable isotope dilution electrospray MSMS as previously described (18,19). Between-batch imprecision (n = 30) was 2.8% at 66.1 mmol/L and 2.5% at 333.3 mmol/L.…”

Enzymatic creatinine assays allow estimation of glomerular filtration rate in stages 1 and 2 chronic kidney disease using CKD-EPI equation

“…This pattern underscores the difficulty for the manufacturers in correctly realigning theses assays against the IDMS reference method. The necessity of this realignment pertains to the well known interference of ketones, glucose and proteins with the Jaffe reaction [14]. Almost all the available assays are now supposed to be traceable to IDMS.…”

The Uncertainty of the eGFR

“…Interestingly, not only were the magnitudes of the biases different, but the bias could be positive in some methods and negative in others. Where samples were supplemented with interferents the observed bias was greater at creatinine levels within the reference interval than at higher concentrations [17].…”