Why the study?
QuidelOrtho Diagnostics released the Vitros NT-proBNP II assay, prompting an evaluation of its analytical performance.
The new Vitros NT-proBNP II assay demonstrates acceptable analytical performance but yields systematically higher values than the previous generation assay, which must be accounted for in clinical practice.
May support lab transition to the reformulated assay; leaves open clinical impact of observed bias versus prior version.
Background/Objectives: N-terminal-proBNP (NT-proBNP) is a biomarker released into the blood in response to heart failure, reflecting the extent of cardiac stress and damage. QuidelOrtho Diagnostics released its latest reformulation of its NT-proBNP assay, the Vitros NT-proBNP II assay. This study aims to evaluate the analytical performance of the Vitros NT-proBNP II assay. Methods: Repeatability, reproducibility, carryover, analytical measurement range, and clinical reportable range (AMR and CRR) were assessed using commercially available materials and dilution of patient specimens. Accuracy was evaluated by comparing results from the Vitros NT-proBNP II and the Vitros NT-proBNP assays. Paired heparin and EDTA plasma specimen results were compared, and instrument-to-instrument comparison was performed using two different Vitros 5600 Integrated Systems. NT-proBNP stability was evaluated at room temperature, 2–8 °C, and −18 °C for up to five days. Results: Repeatability and reproducibility were ≤10% CV, and no carryover was observed. The AMR was 20–30,000 pg/mL and dilution up to 80 times was verified. Passing–Bablok analysis showed a significant proportional bias with a slope of 1.37. Instrument-to-instrument and heparin-to-EDTA plasma comparisons showed no significant biases. NT-proBNP is stable up to five days at room temperature, 4 °C, and −20 °C. Conclusions: Our evaluation demonstrated acceptable analytical performances of the Vitros NT-proBNP II assay except for the positive proportional bias compared with the Vitros NT-proBNP assay.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiao et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: