Comparison of third and second generation parathyroid hormone assays and their use in chronic hemdialysis patients
Abstract
Introduction: This work’s objective is to compare third and second generation assays in patients with normal kidney function and in chronic hemodialysis patients, and the implications on the latter. Methods: 60 chronic hemodialysis patients and 40 patients with normal kidney function were studied and their PTH levels were measured for both assays. Results: In patients population with normal kidney function the average on PTH was 51.8 and 45.6 pg/ml with second and third generation assays respectively. In chronic hemodialysis patients the average PTH was 193.9 and 137.1 pg/ml with second and third generation assays respectively. The difference between assays was 11.3% and 29.3% in patients with normal kidney function and in hemodialysis patients respectively. Third generation assay caused a variation in the amount of patients that fall over seve ral PTH ranges according to KDIGO guidelines, for a lesser value of 2 times the reference upper limit: it changes from 20 to 25 patients, between 2 and 9 times: it changes from 31 to 32 patients, and more than 9 times: it changes from 9 to 3 patients. Conclusions: When PTH concentration increases the difference between both assays also increases, for this reason we cannot use them indiscriminately in a chronic hemodialysis patient population. With third generation assays 11 patients (18.3%) changed their classification according to KDIGO guidelines, which will result in a change of treatment.References
Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD-MBD Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder (CKD-MBD). Kidney Int Suppl. 2009;(113):S1-130.
Brossard JH, Cloutier M, Roy L, Lepage R, Gascon-Barré M, D'Amour P. Accumulation of a non-(1-84) molecular form of parathyroid hormone (PTH) detected by intact parathyroid hormone assay in renal failure: importance in the interpretation of PTH values. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996;81(11):3923-9.
Martin KJ, Hruska KA, Lewis J, Anderson C, Slatopolsky E. The renal handling of parathyroid hormone. Role of peritubular uptake and glomerular filtration. J Clin Invest. 1977;60(4):808-14.
Souberbielle JC, Boutten A, Carlier MC, Chevenne D, Coumaros G, Lawson-Body E, et al. Inter-method variability in PTH measurement: implication for the care of CKD patients. Kidney Int. 2006;70(2):345-50.
Martin KJ, Akhtar I, González EA. Parathyroid hormone: new assays, new receptors. Semin Nephrol. 2004;24(1):3-9.
Huan J, Olgaard K, Nielsen L, Lewin E. Parathyroid hormone 7-84 induces hypocalcemia and inhibits the parathyroid hormone 1-84 secretory response to hypocalcemia in rats with intact parathyroid glands. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17(7):1923-30.
Divieti P, John MR, Juppner H, Bringhurst FR. Human PTH-(7-84) inhibits bone resorption in vitro via actions independent of the type 1 PTH/PTHrP receptor. Endocrinology. 2002;143(1):171-6.
Hecking M, Kainz A, Bielesz B, Plischke M, Beilhack G, Hörl WH, et al. Clinical evaluation of two novel biointact PTH(1-84) assays in hemodialysis patients. Clin Biochem. 2012;45(18):1645-51.
Tan K, Ong L, Sethi S, Saw S. Comparison of the Elecsys PTH(1-84) assay with four contemporary second generation intact PTH assays and association with other biomarkers in chronic kidney disease patients. Clin Biochem. 2013;46(9):781-6.
Cavalier E, Delanaye P, Vranken L, Bekaert AC, Carlisi A, Chapelle JP, et al. Interpretation of serum PTH concentration with different kits in dialysis patients according to the KDIGO guidelines: importance of the reference (normal) values. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(5):1950-6.
