Hortin, Glen L.

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.

Abstract Background: Urinary excretion of albumin indicates kidney damage and is recognized as a risk factor for progression of kidney disease and cardiovascular disease. The role of urinary albumin measurements has focused attention on the clinical need for accurate and clearly reported results. The National Kidney Disease Education Program and the IFCC convened a conference to assess the current state of preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical issues affecting urine albumin measurements and to identify areas needing improvement. Content: The chemistry of albumin in urine is incompletely understood. Current guidelines recommend the use of the albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) as a surrogate for the error-prone collection of timed urine samples. Although ACR results are affected by patient preparation and time of day of sample collection, neither is standardized. Considerable intermethod differences have been reported for both albumin and creatinine measurement, but trueness is unknown because there are no reference measurement procedures for albumin and no reference materials for either analyte in urine. The recommended reference intervals for the ACR do not take into account the large intergroup differences in creatinine excretion (e.g., related to differences in age, sex, and ethnicity) nor the continuous increase in risk related to albumin excretion. Discussion: Clinical needs have been identified for standardization of (a) urine collection methods, (b) urine albumin and creatinine measurements based on a complete reference system, (c) reporting of test results, and (d) reference intervals for the ACR.