Why the study?
How does the analytical performance and clinical results of a fully automated MEIA system for BNP compare with a POCT method?
How does the analytical performance and clinical results of a fully automated MEIA system for BNP compare with a POCT method?
MEIA and POCT methods for BNP have similar analytical performance but yield different clinical results, necessitating method-specific reference and cut-off values.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clinicians should use assay-specific BNP thresholds to avoid misclassification; leaves open whether harmonization improves diagnostic consistency.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the analytical performance of a recently available immunoassay for brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), based on microparticle enzyme immunoassay (MEIA, AxSYM System, Abbott Laboratories), whose analytical characteristics and clinical results were compared with those of a point of care testing (POCT) method (TRIAGE system, Biosite Diagnostics). The within-run and total imprecision of the MEIA system were 18.4% and 19.8% at 21 ng/l, 8.0% and 14.8% at 183 ng/l, and 5.7% and 14.0% at 319 ng/l, respectively. The detection limit of the MEIA system was tested by repeatedly measuring (n=20) the 0 calibrator in four different runs; a mean +3 SD value of 5.6+/-4.8 ng/l (range 1.8-12.6 ng/l) was obtained. A close linear relationship (MEIA= -22.5+/-1.71 POCT method, R=0.950, n=296) was found (BNP concentration: 5-5500 ng/l), with a significant bias (mean difference: 164.8 ng/l, p<0.0001). Mean BNP concentration measured in 94 reference subjects (57 women and 37 men; mean age 43.5+/-14.0 years) was higher with MEIA than POCT, (25.9+/-32.7 ng/l vs. 11.7+/-8.9 ng/l, p<0.0001). The same trend was observed also in 202 cardiac patients (620.6+/-1082.2 ng/l vs. 386.1+/-594.5 ng/l, p<0.0001). Our data suggest that MEIA and POCT have quite similar analytical performance but different clinical results. Then, different reference values, as well as cut-off values, should be taken into account for the clinical use of these two immunoassays.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Storti et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: