McQueen, Matthew

Abstract BACKGROUND Urine albumin is the primary biomarker for detection and monitoring of kidney damage. Because fixed decision criteria are used to identify patients with increased values, we investigated if commonly used routine measurement procedures gave comparable results. METHODS Results from 17 commercially available urine albumin measurement procedures were investigated vs an isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) procedure. Nonfrozen aliquots of freshly collected urine from 332 patients with chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension were distributed to manufacturers to perform urine albumin measurements according to the respective instructions for use for each procedure. Frozen aliquots were used for measurements by the IDMS procedure. An error model was used to determine imprecision and bias components. RESULTS Median differences between the largest positive and negative biases vs IDMS were 45%, 37%, and 42% in the concentration intervals of 12–30 mg/L, 31–200 mg/L, and 201–1064 mg/L, respectively. Biases varied with concentration for most procedures and exceeded ±10% over the concentration interval for 14 of 16 quantitative procedures. Mean biases ranged from −35% to 34% at 15 mg/L. Dilution of samples with high concentrations introduced bias for 4 procedures. The combined CV was >10% for 5 procedures. It was not possible to estimate total error due to dependence of bias on concentration. CVs for sample-specific influences were 0% to 15.2%. CONCLUSIONS Bias was the dominant source of disagreement among routine measurement procedures. Consequently, standardization efforts will improve agreement among results. Variation of bias with concentration needs to be addressed by manufacturers.

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.