Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis logoLink to Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis
. 2007 Mar 26;21(2):71–76. doi: 10.1002/jcla.20141

Comparison and evaluation of two C‐reactive protein assays based on particle‐enhanced immunoturbidimetry

Ali Rιza Şişman 1,✉, Tuncay Küme 1, Gültekin Taş 2, Pι nar Akan 1, Pι nar Tuncel 1
PMCID: PMC6648996  PMID: 17385663

Abstract

The use of C‐reactive protein (CRP) assays is increasing for a wide range of clinical conditions, and consequently the analytical performance requirements for CRP assays are also changing. For this reason, manufacturers have been developing CRP assays based on different methodologies to provide both high sensitivity and a wide measuring range. However, it is questionable whether these methods can meet the desired requirements for CRP assays. CRP Latex on the Cobas Integra 400 and CRP Tina‐quant Latex on the Modular Analytics‐P were evaluated in terms of detection limit, linearity, intra‐ and interassay precision, and comparability with 268 patient samples. The intra‐ and interassay precision of the two methods was <4.1% in the three pools with CRP concentrations ranging from 6.9 to 215 mg/L, and >10% in the pool with concentrations of ∼0.60 mg/L. The detection limits for CRP Latex and Tina‐quant Latex were 0.20 and 0.22 mg/L, respectively. Both methods were linear up to 215 mg/L. There was a good agreement between the two assays, except for a scattering at concentrations near the detection limits. Deming regression analysis for CRP Latex (x‐axis) and Tina‐quant Latex (y‐axis) yielded a slope of 1.067±0.018, an intercept of –0.148±0.358, and an Sy∣x of 5.10 (r=0.996, P<0.0001). The two assays gave comparable results. Low precision was determined for both assays, except for the low pool with a concentration of ∼0.60 mg/L. We concluded that both of these assays should be improved to meet high‐sensitivity criteria. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 21:71–76, 2007. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Keywords: C‐reactive protein, high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein, method comparison, method validation, analytical performance characteristics

REFERENCES

  • 1. Pepys MB. C‐reactive protein fifty years on. Lancet 1981;1:653–657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Meier‐Ewert HK, Ridker PM, Rifai N, Price N, Dinges DF, Mullington JM. Absence of diurnal variation of C‐reactive protein concentrations in healthy human subjects. Clin Chem 2001;47:426–430. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Frohlich M, Sund M, Thorand B, Hutchinson WL, Pepys MB, Koenig W. Lack of seasonal variation in C‐reactive protein. Clin Chem 2002;48:575–577. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Clyne B, Olshaker JS. The C‐reactive protein. J Emerg Med 1999;6:1019–1025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Ross R. Atherosclerosis–an inflammatory disease. N Engl J Med 1999;340:115–126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Verma S, Szmitko PE, Ridker PM. C‐reactive protein comes of age. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 2005;2:29–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Ridker PM, Rifai N, Pfeffer MA, et al. Inflammation, pravastatin, and the risk of coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) Investigators. Circulation 1998;98:839–844. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Ridker PM, Buring JE, Cook NR, Rifai N. C‐reactive protein, the metabolic syndrome, and risk of incident cardiovascular events: an 8‐year follow‐up of 14719 initially healthy American women. Circulation 2003;107:391–397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Albert CM, Ma J, Rifai N, Stampfer MJ, Ridker PM. Prospective study of C‐reactive protein, homocysteine, and plasma lipid levels as predictors of sudden cardiac death. Circulation 2002;105:2595–2599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Ridker PM, Stampfer MJ, Rifai N. Novel risk factors for systemic atherosclerosis: a comparison of C‐reactive protein, fibrinogen, homocysteine, lipoprotein(a), and standard cholesterol screening as predictors of peripheral arterial disease. JAMA 2001;285:2481–2485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Tice JA, Browner W, Tracy RP, Cummings SR. The relation of C‐reactive protein levels to total and cardiovascular mortality in older U.S. women. Am J Med 2003;114:199–205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Pearson TA, Mensah GA, Alexander RW, et al. Markers of inflammation and cardiovascular disease: application to clinical and public health practice: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Centers for Disease Control and prevention and the American Heart Association. Circulation 2003;107:499–511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Yeh ET, Willerson JT. Coming of age of C‐reactive protein: using inflammation markers in cardiology. Circulation 2003;107:370–371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Roberts WL, Sedrick R, Moulton L, Spencer A, Rifai N. Evaluation of four automated high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein methods: Implications for clinical and epidemiological applications. Clin Chem 2000;46:461–468. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Rifai N, Tracy RP, Ridker PM. Clinical efficacy of an automated high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein assay. Clin Chem 1999;45:2136–2141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards . “Method comparison and bias estimation using patient samples. Approved guideline.” NCCLS document EP9‐A. Villanova, PA: NCCLS Publications; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Martin RF. General deming regression for estimating systematic bias and its confidence interval in method‐comparison studies. Clin Chem 2000;46:100–104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparing methods of measurements: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 1995;346:1085–1087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Roberts WL, Moulton L, Law TC, et al. Evaluation of nine automated high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein methods: implications for clinical and epidemiological applications. Part 2. Clin Chem. 2001;47:418–425. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Ledue T, Rifai N. Preanalytic and analytic sources of variations in C‐reactive protein measurement: Implications for cardiovascular disease risk assessment. Clin Chem 2003; 49:1258–1271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Rifai N, Warnick GR. Quality specifications and the assessment of the biochemical risk of atherosclerosis. Clin Chim Acta 2004;346:55–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Kimberly MM, Vesper HW, Caudill SP, et al. Standardization of immunoassays for measurement of high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein. Phase I: evaluation of secondary reference materials. Clin Chem 2003;49:611–616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES