4.1 Article

Analytical validation of soluble fms-like tyrosine and placental growth factor assays on BRAHMS KRYPTOR Compact Plus automated immunoassay platform

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.preghy.2017.12.009

Keywords

Preeclampsia; sFlt1; PlGF; Analytical validation

Funding

  1. Roche diagnostics
  2. Siemens

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Preeclampsia is one of the leading hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Angiogenic biomarkers such as anti-angiogenic factor soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt1) and pro-angiogenic factor placental growth factor (PlGF) are involved in the pathophysiology of preeclampsia. Objective: The aim of this study is to validate the analytical performance of sFlt1 and PlGF on the B.R.A.H.M.S KRYPTOR Compact Plus (ThermoFisher Scientific). Study design: We examined K2-EDTA plasma samples from 50 patients on B.R.A.H.M.S KRYPTOR Compact Plus, an automated immunoassay platform. QC materials were used to assess intra-and inter-precision of the assay. Lower limit of quantitation and interference studies were determined using pooled patient plasma. Results: The sFlt1 and PlGF assays demonstrated an analytical measuring range of 90-69,000 pg/mL and 11-7000 pg/mL, respectively (r(2) > 0.99). Lower limit of quantitation (20% CV) was interpolated to be 35 pg/mL for sFlt1 and 10 pg/mL for PlGF. Total precision for both assay displayed CVs of < 10%. Interference studies showed that both assays were not significantly affected by hemolysis up to an H-index of 1100 for sFlt1 and 300 for PlGF; L- and I-index of 800 and 80 respectively for both assays. The Passing-Bablok regression analysis for sFlt1/PlGF yielded an equation of y = 1.05x + 0.02, and the Bland Altman analysis showed an average bias of 0.84. Conclusion: Plasma levels of sFlt1 and PlGF measured on the B.R.A.H.M.S KRYPTOR Compact Plus platform demonstrate excellent analytical performance and are acceptable as clinical grade assays.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available