Key result
ITA-derived RBP4 improves diagnostic discrimination for severe CAD vs. ELISA with ~0.87 AUC.
Why the study?
Differences among analytical platforms may contribute to inconsistent associations between circulating adipokines and coronary artery disease severity.
Does the choice of analytical platform (ITA vs. ELISA) affect the quantification of RBP4 and adiponectin and their associations with coronary artery disease severity?
Cross-Sectional (n=128)
No
Does the choice of analytical platform (ITA vs. ELISA) affect the quantification of RBP4 and adiponectin and their associations with coronary artery disease severity?
Assay-dependent analytical variability significantly affects the magnitude of biomarker-disease associations, highlighting that proposed diagnostic thresholds for RBP4 and adiponectin must account for the specific analytical platform used.
ITA outperforms ELISA for RBP4 discrimination in severe CAD; leaves open whether assay-specific thresholds warrant clinical adoption without prospective validation.
Background: Differences among analytical platforms may contribute to inconsistent associations between circulating adipokines and coronary artery disease severity. This study compared the analytical robustness and clinical performance of the immunoturbidimetric assay (ITA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for measuring retinol-binding protein 4 (RBP4) and adiponectin (APN). Methods: A total of 128 patients with angiographically confirmed coronary artery disease were prospectively enrolled. Serum RBP4 and APN concentrations were measured in parallel using ITA and ELISA. Analytical performance was evaluated by precision, linearity, and recovery testing. In an additional cohort of 20 healthy volunteers, the effects of room-temperature storage, repeated freeze-thaw cycles, centrifugation conditions, and anticoagulant type were assessed. Coronary lesion severity was quantified using the Gensini score, and cardiac function was evaluated by Doppler echocardiography. Correlation, receiver operating characteristic, Bland-Altman, and multivariable regression analyses were performed. Results: Both assays demonstrated acceptable linearity and recovery, but ITA showed superior within-run and between-run precision. ELISA-derived measurements were more susceptible to prolonged room-temperature exposure, repeated freeze-thaw cycles, and lithium-heparin anticoagulation. RBP4 concentrations increased and APN concentrations decreased with increasing coronary lesion severity (all P<0.001). ITA-derived measurements showed stronger associations with Gensini score and selected echocardiographic indices than ELISA-derived measurements. ITA-derived RBP4 and APN demonstrated higher diagnostic discrimination for severe coronary artery disease, with areas under the curve of 0.872 and 0.851, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed that ELISA produced a positive systematic bias relative to ITA, with increasing intermethod variability at higher RBP4 concentrations. Conclusion: Assay-dependent analytical variability affects the magnitude of biomarker-disease associations and the classification of coronary disease severity. ELISA-derived RBP4 measurements exhibited a positive systematic bias relative to ITA; therefore, adipokine concentrations and proposed diagnostic thresholds should be interpreted with consideration of the analytical platform used. Assay harmonization and standardized preanalytical procedures are necessary before RBP4- and APN-based risk stratification can be applied reliably across laboratories.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhu et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Coronary artery disease (n=128). Immunoturbidimetric assay (ITA) for RBP4 quantification vs. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was evaluated on Diagnostic discrimination (Area Under the Curve) for severe coronary artery disease (Gensini score ≥40) (AUC difference 0.071, 95% CI 0.804-0.925, p=0.018). ITA-derived RBP4 measurements demonstrated significantly higher diagnostic discrimination for severe coronary artery disease compared to ELISA-derived measurements (AUC 0.872 vs 0.800, P=0.018).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: