Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences (Aug 2024)

Longitudinal evaluation of manufacturer-specific differences for high-sensitive CRP EQA results

  • Nathalie Weiss,
  • Laura Vierbaum,
  • Marcel Kremser,
  • Anne Kaufmann-Stoeck,
  • Silke Kappler,
  • Silvia Ballert,
  • Kathrin Kabrodt,
  • Klaus-Peter Hunfeld,
  • Klaus-Peter Hunfeld,
  • Ingo Schellenberg,
  • Ingo Schellenberg

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2024.1401405
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundC-reactive protein (CRP) is an established serum biomarker for different pathologies such as tissue injury and inflammatory events. One rising area of interest is the incorporation of low concentrations of CRP, so called high-sensitive (hs-) CRP, in the risk assessment and treatment monitoring of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Many research projects and the resulting meta-analyses have reported controversial results for the use of hs-CRP, especially in the risk assessment of CVDs. However, since these analyses used different assays to detect hs-CRP, it is important to assess the current level of assay harmonization.MethodsThis paper analyzes data from 17 external quality assessment (EQA) surveys for hs-CRP conducted worldwide between 2018 and 2023. Each EQA survey consisted of two blinded samples. In 2020 the sample material changed from pooled serum to single-donor samples. The aim was to assess the current status of assay harmonization by a manufacturer-based approach, taking into consideration the clinical decision limits for hs-CRP risk-stratification of CVDs as well as the scatter of results.ResultsOur analyses show that harmonization has increased in recent years from median differences of up to 50% to below 20%, with one exception that showed an increasing bias throughout the observed period. After changing sample materials from pools to single-donor samples, the coefficient of variation decreased to below 10% with one exception. Nevertheless, even these differences in the clinical setting could lead to disparate classification of patients depending on the assay used.ConclusionWhile there was a positive trend towards harmonization, meta-analysis of different risk-score publications should stratify their analysis by assay to account for the manufacturer-specific differences observed in this paper. Furthermore, assays are currently traceable to different international standard preparations, which might have a negative impact on future harmonization.

Keywords