Back to Authors

Borland, Timothy M.

Mayo Clinic

Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology

Citations 2

Comparison of Urinary Albumin Quantification by Immunoturbidimetry, Competitive Immunoassay, and Protein-Cleavage Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry
Seegmiller, Jesse C. , Sviridov, Denis, Larson, Timothy S., Borland, Timothy M., Hortin, Glen L. , Lieske, John C.

Clinical Chemistry | September 10, 2009 | Volume: 55 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 1991-1994

10.1373/clinchem.2009.129833 Get It

Abstract Background: Increased urinary albumin excretion is a well-documented diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for renal disease. Urinary albumin is typically measured in clinical settings by immunoassay methods. However, neither a reference method nor a urine albumin calibration reference material is currently available. Methods: We quantified urinary albumin in patient samples by using 3 commercially available reagent systems: DiaSorin SPQ™ and Beckman Coulter LX® 20 (immunoturbidimetric), and Siemens Immulite® (competitive immunoassay). Results were compared to values obtained by protein-cleavage liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Results: In general, results from the 3 immunoassays agreed with results from LC-MS/MS. However, the SPQ results showed a negative bias across all ranges of albuminuria [(0–200 mg/L, y = 0.91x – 3.74 (CI 0.86–0.96); > 200 mg/L, y = 0.88x – 40.30 (CI 0.76–1.00)], whereas the LX 20 showed minimal bias in the 0–200 mg/L range [y = 0.97x − 88 (CI 0.92–1.02)] and the Immulite assay showed positive bias in the 0–200 mg/L range [y = 1.15x – 4.38 (CI 1.09–1.20)]. Conclusions: These results showed a reasonable quantification of urinary albumin by representative polyclonal and monoclonal immunoassays compared to an LC-MS/MS assay. In addition, the results do not suggest the presence of nonimmunoreactive albumin in urine. However, differences in analytic performance between assays support the need for a reference calibration material and reference method to standardize clinical laboratory measurements of urinary albumin.
Comparison between Immunoturbidimetry, Size-Exclusion Chromatography, and LC-MS to Quantify Urinary Albumin
Shaikh, Aisha , Seegmiller, Jesse C. , Borland, Timothy M., Burns, Bradley E., Ladwig, Paula M. , Kumar, Rajiv , Larson, Timothy S., Singh, Ravinder J. , Lieske, John C. , Kumar, Rajiv

Clinical Chemistry | July 11, 2008 | Volume: 54 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 1504-1510

10.1373/clinchem.2008.107508 Get It

Abstract Background: The accurate and precise measurement of urinary albumin is critical, since even minor increases are diagnostically sensitive indicators of renal disease, cardiovascular events, and risk for death. To gain insights into potential measurement biases, we systematically compared urine albumin measurements performed by LC-MS, a clinically available immunoturbidimetric assay, and size-exclusion HPLC. Methods: We obtained unused clinical urine samples from 150 patients who were stratified by degrees of albuminuria (<20 mg/L, 20–250 mg/L, >250 mg/L) as determined by the immunoturbidimetric assay used in our clinical laboratory (Roche Hitachi 912). Urine albumin was then remeasured via LC-MS and HPLC (Accumin™) assays. Results: The immunoturbidimetric assay, calibrated using manufacturer-supplied serum-derived calibrators (Diasorin), underestimated albumin compared with LC-MS. After calibration with purified HSA, this immunoturbidimetric assay correlated well with LC-MS. HPLC overestimated albumin compared with both LC-MS and immunoturbidimetry. The current LC-MS and HPLC assays both performed poorly at concentrations <20 mg/L. Conclusions: Efforts are needed to establish gold-standard traceable calibrators for clinical assays. LC-MS is a specific method to quantify albumin in native urine when concentrations exceed 20 mg/L, and therefore could be employed for standardization among assays.