Articles Tập 67 Số CĐ14-HNKH Hội Hóa sinh Y học Việt Nam 19/09/2026

COMPARABILITY OF PLASMA CREATININE MEASUREMENT BY ENZYMATIC AND KINETIC JAFFE METHODS ON COBAS C702 AND AU5800 ANALYZERS IN CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE PATIENTS

Vi Kim Phong, Nguyen Thi Bang Suong, Luu Nguyen Trung Thong, Le Chi Cong, Nguyen Huu Huy, Mai Thi Bich Chi, Nguyen Thi Thuy Lieu
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v67iCD14.6466
0 Views
0 Downloads
Abstract

Background: Plasma creatinine is a key analyte for assessing renal function and staging chronic kidney disease (CKD) through the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). In many laboratories this test is performed in parallel by the kinetic Jaffe method and the enzymatic method on different systems, so the comparability of results must be assessed to ensure consistency in diagnosis and monitoring. This study evaluated the comparability of plasma creatinine results between the enzymatic method (Cobas c702) and the kinetic Jaffe method (AU5800) in CKD patients.

Methods: A descriptive experimental study following CLSI EP09-A3 was performed on 200 plasma samples from CKD patients, stratified by stages 2 to 5 (40 samples per stage), with concentrations spanning the measuring range (65 – 1130 µmol/L). Each sample was measured in duplicate on each system. Comparability was assessed using Pearson correlation, Passing–Bablok regression and Bland – Altman analysis; bias at clinical decision levels was estimated and compared with the allowable total error (TEa) derived from biological variation (8.87%).

Results: The two methods were strongly correlated (r = 0.998; r² = 0.996). Passing–Bablok regression: Enzymatic = −19.21 + 1.144 × Jaffe; the 95% CI of the slope (1.133 – 1.156) excluded 1 and that of the intercept (−21.64 to −17.29) excluded 0, indicating both proportional and constant systematic error. The mean difference (Enzymatic − Jaffe) was +15.0 µmol/L (+1.96%; 95% limits of agreement −12.4% to +16.4%). The bias was concentration-dependent: at low concentrations (stage 2) Jaffe read higher than enzymatic (−4.4%), whereas at high concentrations (stages 4–5) enzymatic read higher than Jaffe (+7.6% to +9.7%); 28.0% of samples exceeded the 8.87% TEa.

Conclusions: The two methods were strongly correlated but not comparable owing to a concentration-dependent systematic error, and therefore cannot be used interchangeably, particularly for serial monitoring within a patient and for CKD staging at high concentrations.

References
[1]
1. Peake M, Whiting M. Measurement of serum creatinine – current status and future goals. Clin Biochem Rev. 2006;27(4):173-184. Google Scholar
[2]
2. Syme NR, Stevens K, Stirling C, et al. Clinical and analytical impact of moving from Jaffe to enzymatic serum creatinine methodology. J Appl Lab Med. 2020;5(5):938-947. Google Scholar
[3]
3. Cholongitas E, Marelli L, Kerry A, et al. Different methods of creatinine measurement significantly affect eGFR and clinical classifications. Liver Transpl. 2007;13(4):523-529. Google Scholar
[4]
4. Drion I, Cobbaert C, Groenier KH, et al. Clinical evaluation of analytical variations in serum creatinine measurements: why laboratories should abandon Jaffe techniques. BMC Nephrol. 2012;13:133. Google Scholar
[5]
5. Đào Thị Quỳnh Nga, Trần Thị Chi Mai, Lương Huệ Quyên. Đánh giá và so sánh kỹ thuật định lượng creatinin huyết tương bằng phương pháp enzym và phương pháp Jaffe trên máy hóa sinh Cobas c503. Tạp chí Y học Việt Nam. 2022;515(1):142-146. Google Scholar
[6]
6. Trần Thành Vinh, Trịnh Thanh Lý, Trần Thanh Bình, Phạm Thị Mai. Đánh giá độ tương đồng của xét nghiệm creatinin huyết thanh bằng phương pháp enzymatic và phương pháp Jaffe trên máy sinh hóa tự động Cobas c702 tại Bệnh viện Chợ Rẫy. Tạp chí Y học Việt Nam. 2025;555(2):366-371. Google Scholar
[7]
7. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Measurement Procedure Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples; Approved Guideline – Third Edition. CLSI document EP09-A3. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2013. Google Scholar
[8]
8. Ricos C, Alvarez V, Cava F, et al. Current databases on biologic variation: pros, cons and progress. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1999;59:491-500 (cập nhật 2014). Google Scholar
[9]
9. Bộ Y tế. Quyết định số 2429/QĐ-BYT ngày 12/6/2017: Ban hành Hướng dẫn đánh giá năng lực và công nhận phòng xét nghiệm y học. Hà Nội: Bộ Y tế; 2017. Google Scholar
[10]
10. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 15189:2022 Medical laboratories – Requirements for quality and competence. Geneva: ISO; 2022. Google Scholar