Aminotransferase Activity Measurement on The Atellica® CH 930 and The Architect® ci4100

  • Soumia Nachate 
  • Hind Zrikem 
  • Fayrouz Debbagh 
  • Saliha Chellak 
  • Abderrahman Boukhira 


Abstract Views
160

Downloads
142

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Apr 22, 2023
Published Aug 31, 2023
10.24018/ejbio.2023.4.4.472

Abstract viewed = 160 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

The Atellica® CH 930 is a new biochemistry analyzer recently introduced to the world market. This study aims to compare the Atellica® CH 930 analyzer to the Architect® ci4100 analyzer for measurement of serum aspartate (AST) and alanine (ALT) aminotransferase concentrations. A total of 112 sera were tested on the Architect® ci4100 and the Atellica® CH 930 analyzers for ALT and AST activities, and the results were compared using the paired Student's t-test, Pearson’s correlation analysis, Passing-Bablok regression analysis, and Bland–Altman plots. There was no significant difference between the means of the ALT and AST concentrations measured using the two instruments (p = 0.659 and p = 0.506, respectively). For ALT, the Passing-Bablok equation was Atellica=1.11 ×Architect -0.96, with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.999. For AST, it was Atellica=1.08 ×Architect -0.50, with r = 0.998. According to Bland-Altman plots, the mean difference between both methods was 2.3 IU/L (4.3%) for ALT and 2.1 IU/L (5.8%) for AST, with 95.53% and 96.43% of points within the interval [0 ± 1.96 × SD], respectively. These findings demonstrated that the Atellica® CH 930 and Architect® ci4100 methods had an overall good agreement in aminotransferase measurement.

 

Keywords: Agreement alanine aminotransferase aspartate aminotransferase method comparison

References

  1. Vroon, D.H., & Israili, Z. (1990). Aminotransferases. In: Walker HK, Hall WD, Hurst JW (Eds). Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations (3rd ed., Chapter 99). Butterworths: Boston.
     Google Scholar
  2. Swetha, N., & Kavitha, A. (2017). Evaluation and comparison of automated analysers on hepatic enzymes. Int J Res Med Sci. 2(2), 595-601.
     Google Scholar
  3. Huang, X. J., Choi, Y. K., Im, H. S., Yarimaga, O., Yoon, E., Kim, H. S. (2006). Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST/GOT) and Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT/GPT) Detection Techniques. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 6(7), 756–782.
     Google Scholar
  4. Kiba, N. (2005), ENZYMES | Enzymes in Physiological Samples. In: P. Worsfold, A. Townshend, & C. Poole (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Analytical Science (2nd ed., pp. 536–544). Elsevier: France.
     Google Scholar
  5. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. (2013). Method comparison and bias estimation using patient samples; approved guideline—Third edition. CLSI document EP09-A3. Wayne, PA.
     Google Scholar
  6. Vassault, A., Hulin, A., Chapuzet, E., Arnaud, J., Giroud, C., membres du sous-groupe 2 analytique de la SFBC (2010). Vérification/validation des performances d'une méthode d'analyse. Ann Biol Clin, 68 Spec No 1: 247-94. French.
     Google Scholar
  7. Bilić-Zulle L. (2011). Comparison of methods: Passing and Bablok regression. Biochemia Medica, 21(1), 49-52.
     Google Scholar
  8. Cleophas, T.J., & Zwinderman, A.H. (2021). Regressions for Quantitative Diagnostic Testing. In: T. J. Cleophas, & A. H. Zwinderman (Eds.), Regression Analysis in Medical Research (2nd ed., pp. 339–348). Springer Cham: Switzerland.
     Google Scholar
  9. Hollis, S. (1996). Analysis of method comparison studies. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, 33 (Pt 1), 1-4.
     Google Scholar
  10. Zaki, R., Bulgiba, A., Ismail, R., & Ismail, N. A. (2012). Statistical methods used to test for agreement of medical instruments measuring continuous variables in method comparison studies: a systematic review. PloS One, 7(5), e37908.
     Google Scholar
  11. Infusino, I., Frusciante, E., Braga, F., Panteghini, M. (2017). Progress and impact of enzyme measurement standardization. Clin Chem Lab Med, 55, 334-340.
     Google Scholar