Medizinische Universität Graz Austria/Österreich - Forschungsportal - Medical University of Graz

Logo MUG-Forschungsportal

Gewählte Publikation:

SHR Neuro Krebs Kardio Lipid Stoffw Microb

Scharnagl, H; Stojakovic, T; Dieplinger, B; Dieplinger, H; Erhart, G; Kostner, GM; Herrmann, M; März, W; Grammer, TB.
Comparison of lipoprotein (a) serum concentrations measured by six commercially available immunoassays.
Atherosclerosis. 2019; 289:206-213 Doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2019.08.015 [OPEN ACCESS]
Web of Science PubMed FullText FullText_MUG

 

Führende Autor*innen der Med Uni Graz
Scharnagl Hubert
Co-Autor*innen der Med Uni Graz
Herrmann Markus
Kostner Gerhard
März Winfried
Stojakovic Tatjana
Altmetrics:

Dimensions Citations:

Plum Analytics:

Scite (citation analytics):

Abstract:
Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is an established causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), independently of low-density lipoproteins (LDL) and other risk factors. The recognition of Lp(a) as an atherogenic molecule has raised the demand for reliable quantification methods in the clinical laboratory. The aim of this work is to compare commercial immunochemical assays. We measured Lp(a) serum concentrations using six different assays, providing Lp(a) in mg/dl (Denka Seiken, Abbott Quantia, Beckman, Diasys 21FS, and Siemens N Latex) or in nmol/l (Roche TinaQuant, Diasys 21 FS) in 144 serum samples covering the clinically relevant range of Lp(a) concentrations. All assays relied on five-point calibrations using calibrators provided by the manufacturers. Apolipoprotein(a) phenotyping was performed by sodium dodecyl sulfate-agarose gel electrophoresis (SDS-agarose) followed by immunoblotting. Most bivariate correlation coefficients were greater than 0.90. Compared to an established IFCC-proposed reference material, the results of the different assays diverged from the target values (43.3 mg/dl or 96.6 nmol/l) by -8% (Siemens N Latex) and +22% (Abbott Quantia). Stratification of the samples into five groups with increasing Lp(a) concentrations and difference plots showed that the differences among assays were concentration-dependent. Some assays overestimated Lp(a) at high concentrations compared to the Denka Seiken assay. Current commercial immunological assays for measuring Lp(a) concentrations are differently calibrated. Their biases differ significantly across the clinically relevant concentration range in a non-linear manner. This is not conclusively explained by apolipoprotein (a) phenotypes. Further international efforts to harmonize assays for Lp(a) are needed. Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Find related publications in this database (Keywords)
Lipoprotein (a) assays
Harmonization
Atherosclerosis
Myocardial infarction
© Med Uni Graz • Impressum