Bornhorst, Joshua

AbstractBackgroundDecreased amyloid β1‐42 (Aβ42) and increased tau (t‐Tau and p‐Tau) concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) reflect the pathological changes of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and aid in the diagnosis of AD dementia. In the United States, the ADmark® assay has been almost exclusively used for the measurement of these biomarkers in clinical practice. Recently, our institution switched from the ADmark® assay to the Roche Elecsys assays. The goal of this study was to determine if differences exist between these methods in classification of patients as having changes indicative of AD pathology.MethodPatients undergoing ADMark® testing (n= 73) were recruited to participate in this IRB‐approved study. Two simultaneous CSF aliquots were obtained. For ADMark®, 2.0mL were collected into a 5mL polypropylene (PP) tube and shipped frozen to Athena Diagnostics per collection instructions for testing (Innotest® immunoassays for Aβ42, t‐Tau, and p‐Tau). For the Roche Elecsys assays (Aβ42, t‐Tau, and p‐Tau), 2.0mL were collected into a 2.5mL low bind PP tube, frozen, and then tested at Mayo Clinic Laboratories. Comparative analysis was performed between the two testing methodologies and to clinical findings.ResultOverall concordance between the ADMark® Aβ42/t‐Tau index (ATI) and Roche p‐Tau/Aβ42 was 89% with 8 (11%) discrepant cases. Four cases were classified as normal by the Roche p‐Tau/Aβ42 but borderline (n=3) or abnormal (n=1) by ADMark® ATI. Four cases were classified as abnormal by the Roche p‐Tau/Aβ42 and borderline by ADMark® ATI. In these cases, the normal Roche p‐Tau/Aβ42 result was most consistent with clinical diagnosis. When compared to clinical diagnosis, cases with clinical suspicion of AD dementia were abnormal in 84% and 92% of cases with the ADMark® ATI and the Roche p‐Tau/Aβ42, respectively. In cases without clinical suspicion of AD dementia, results were abnormal in 19% and 21% of cases with the ADMark® ATI and the Roche p‐Tau/Aβ42, respectively. There were 2 cases with clinical suspicion of AD dementia and 5 cases without suspicion of AD dementia that were classified as borderline by ADMark® ATI.ConclusionRoche p‐Tau/Aβ42 showed comparable performance to ADMark® ATI when correlating results to clinical diagnosis of AD dementia.

Abstract Introduction Measurement of amyloid beta (Aβ40 and Aβ42) and tau (phosphorylated tau [p‐tau] and total tau [t‐tau]) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) can be utilized to differentiate clinical and preclinical Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD) from other neurodegenerative processes. Methods CSF biomarkers were measured in 150 participants from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and the Alzheimer's Disease Research Center. P‐tau/Aβ42 (Roche Elecsys, Fujirebio LUMIPULSE) and Aβ42/40 (Fujirebio LUMIPULSE) ratios were compared to one another and to amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) classification. Results Strong correlation was observed between LUMIPULSE p‐tau/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40, as well as Elecsys and LUMIPULSE p‐tau/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 (Spearman's ρ = –0.827, –0.858, and 0.960, respectively). Concordance between LUMIPULSE p‐tau/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 was 96% and between Elecsys p‐tau/Aβ42 and both LUMIPULSE ratios was 97%. All ratios had > 94% overall, positive, and negative percent agreement with amyloid PET classification. Discussion These data suggest that p‐tau/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 ratios provide similar clinical information in the assessment of amyloid pathology.

Abstract Background: Measurement of parathyroid hormone related peptide (PTHrP) is helpful in the diagnosis and clinical management of patients suspected of humoral hypercalcemia of malignancy (HHM). In these patients uncontrolled release of PTHrP by tumor cells is responsible for the hypercalcemia and PTH concentrations are typically suppressed. Objective: Develop a sensitive and specific assay for quantitation of PTHrP in plasma. Method: Calibrators (PTHrP 1-86) and samples (50uL) were incubated with an anti-PTHrP goat polyclonal acridinium ester labeled antibody. Complexes were transferred and incubated in a microplate coated with an anti-PTHrP polyclonal rabbit antibody. After washing, the acridinium ester generated signal, which is directly proportional to the amount of PTHrP in sample, was quantified. Results: In this assay PTHrp was stable for 24 hours ambient, 3 days refrigerated, 34 days frozen and through 3 freeze/thaws. Intra and inter-assay imprecision in EDTA plasma (~0.16-35.0 pmol/L) ranged from 2.2-8.6% and 5-15%, respectively. The limit of detection was 0.04 pmol/L and the limit of quantitation was 0.16 pmol/L (15% CV). The analytical measuring range was 0.39-50.5 pmol/L (slope of 1.07 and r2 of 0.99). Average spike recovery was 98% (range 85-108%). The assay was not affected by hemoglobin of ≤500 mg/dL, triglycerides of ≤2000 mg/dL, or bilirubin of ≤50mg/dL. No hook effect was noted up to 500 pmol/L. PTH (1-84) did not cross-react in the assay. C-terminal PTHrP(107-139), and N-terminal PTHrP(1-36) had no significant cross-reactivity (≤1.1%). Mid-PTHrP(38-94) had 8.3% cross-reactivity. Comparison with an in-house PTHrP assay (n=267) showed an r2 of 0.96, and slope of 2.25 by Passing-Bablok regression fit. The 97.5% reference interval for PTHrP (n=114) was ≤0.7 pmol/L, however a higher concentration (≤4.2 pmol/L) was identified as a more specific clinical cut-off. A retrospective clinical validation study showed that using ≤4.2 pmol/L resulted in a 91% clinical sensitivity and a 98% clinical specificity. Conclusion: We have developed an analytically and clinically sensitive and specific PTHrP immunoassay. A cutoff of ≤4.2 pmol/L is clinically useful in the evaluation of patients suspected of hypercalcemia of malignancy.

Abstract Background Pathologic causes of hyperprolactinemia include prolactin-secreting pituitary adenoma (prolactinoma), diseases of the hypothalamus, primary hypothyroidism, and renal failure. Another cause of hyperprolactinemia is the presence of macroprolactin, a high-molecular-mass complex of prolactin and immunoglobulins, which constitutes a biologically inactive form of prolactin. Detection of macroprolactin is important to avoid misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment; however, relatively little is known about the persistence of macroprolactin in patients over time or how macroprolactin concentrations evolve within patients. The objective of this study was to examine the changes in macroprolactin and prolactin over time in a large clinical population. Methods All physician-ordered macroprolactin tests from December 2011 to October 2018 (n = 5,318 unique patients) were examined. Data were extracted from patients with repeat collections (≥2 timepoints) during this 7-year period (n = 269). Macroprolactin testing was performed using the Roche Elecsys Prolactin II assay. Prior to analysis, an equal volume of 25% polyethylene glycol (PEG) was added to patient serum, causing macroprolactin to precipitate. Following centrifugation, unprecipitated prolactin was measured in the supernatant, as well as an aliquot of the native sample (measuring total prolactin). Macroprolactin (precipitated prolactin) was calculated by subtracting the unprecipitated prolactin from the total prolactin concentration. For this study, a specimen was considered positive for macroprolactin if the percentage of precipitated prolactin was ≥60%. Results A total of 14% (37/269) of patients tested positive for macroprolactin in at least one of the sequential determinations. For all patients with two or more timepoints, the mean interdetermination change in percent macroprolactin was +0.6% and the mean interdetermination change in total prolactin was –11.6 ng/mL. The mean time between determinations in these patients was 303 days. For the 37 patients that had a positive macroprolactin determination, 25 remained positive across all sample collections (mean interdetermination change of +0.5% macroprolactin, mean interdetermination change in total prolactin of +0.4 ng/mL), seven samples went from positive to negative (mean interdetermination change of –10% macroprolactin, mean change in total prolactin of +0.2 ng/mL), and two samples went from negative to positive (mean interdetermination change of +5.5% macroprolactin, mean change in total prolactin of +1.3 ng/mL). The remaining 3 of the 37 specimens had more than two determinations that fluctuated above and below the predefined cutoff. Conclusions The results from this study suggest that the presence of macroprolactin largely but not exclusively persists over time. Additionally, macroprolactin rarely appears after a previously negative assessment (2/235 patients). Furthermore, only small increases in sequential percent macroprolactin determinations were observed in this data set. The prevalence of the persistence of macroprolactin protein over time might have important implications for patient prolactin monitoring.

Background Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) have been used in magnetic resonance imaging for the past 30 years, where they have significantly improved the effectiveness of imaging studies. However, the increased usage of gadolinium in the medical community has also resulted in unexpected interferences in other laboratory assays. This has been particularly the case in clinical elemental analysis using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Methods By conducting ICP-MS interference experiments, we describe how gadolinium interferes with elemental analysis by space charge effect, double charge effect and the creation of polyatomic interferences. Additionally, by reviewing more than a year of reference laboratory data from our laboratory information system, we determined the number of elemental tests cancelled due to gadolinium interference. Results Interference experiments show that gadolinium normally found in GBCAs can interfere with heavy metals, platinum and selenium analysis of biological fluids using ICP-MS. Within one year, our institution’s metals laboratory had to cancel 42 selenium serum tests and 19 heavy metal urine panels due to potential interference caused by gadolinium. Conclusions GBCAs will continue to be utilized in hospitals around the world. However, clinical laboratories should be wary of potential interferences caused by GBCAs. Relevant interferences include space charge effect, double charge interference, and the formation of polyatomic interferences caused by gadolinium. These interferences can negatively affect patient care by resulting in cancelled laboratory tests and causing patients to have blood redrawn and analysed at a later date leading to delays in their diagnosis/treatment.