A competitive ELISA for lipoprotein(a)

Evaluation of the analytical performances of a new fully automated commercial immunonephelometric assay for lipoprotein(a)

Several commercial methods have been proposed for lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) measurements over the past decades. However, only a few of them appear completely suitable in terms of analytical performance, costs and practicability. We evaluated the analytical performance of a new commercial fully automated immunonephelometric assay for Lp(a) measurements on the IMMAGE Immunochemistry System. Mean within- and between-run coefficients of variation were 2.7% (range 1.2-4.7%) and 3.8% (range 1.8-7.9%), respectively. The linearity of the assay was confirmed up to 102 mg/dl and the deviation from the expected values did not exceed 4% (mean deviation: 1.9%). Moreover, the relative non-linearity was acceptable, ranging from 1.4% to 1.6% and hence constantly lower than the 2.5% upper limit. Since there is no reference method for Lp(a) measurements, 100 routine random serum samples measured by the IMMAGE Immunochemistry System immunonephelometric assay were further compared with two other commercial immunonephelometric assays (Array LPA immunonephelometric assay and BNA Latex-Enhanced Lp(a) nephelometric assay). Non-parametric regression and relative Spearman's correlation coefficients were satisfactory, (y=1.009x - 1.38; r=0.998 IMMAGE Immunochemistry System vs. Array LPA and y=0.922x - 0.40; r=0.989 IMMAGE Immunochemistry System vs. Behring Nephelometer Analyzer (BNA) Latex Lp(a) assay). On the basis of the results of the present evaluation we conclude that the analytical performance and the main technical features of the IMMAGE Immunochemistry System immunonephelometric assay make it a suitable method for Lp(a) measurement in clinical laboratories.

Comparison of a new immunoturbidometric assay of human serum lipoprotein (a) to the ELISA and the IRMA methods

In the present work we have tested a new immunoturbidometric (IT) lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) assay and compared it with two other Lp(a) assay systems (IRMA and ELISA) commonly used in clinical chemistry laboratories. In addition, we have examined the effects of long-term storage and plasminogen on the results of Lp(a). Intra-assay and inter-assay coefficients of variation of the IT method were from 1.6 to 5.5% and from 2.8 to 10.7% depending on the concentration of Lp(a). The correlations between methods were 0.957 (IRMA vs. IT), 0.969 (IRMA vs. ELISA) and 0.956 (IT vs. ELISA) and the regression curves were IRMA = 1.07*IT + 11, IRMA = 1.84*ELISA + 2 and IT = 1.62*ELISA + 17, respectively. Storage of the samples for 5 years at -70 degrees C did not affect serum Lp(a) levels. There was a slight increasing effect of high concentrations of plasminogen on the Lp(a) results, but on physiological serum levels of plasminogen the effect was not significant. We conclude that the IT method provides a simple way to screen serum Lp(a) levels.

Immunoquantification of lipoprotein(a): comparison of nephelometry with electroimmunodiffusion

A new fully automated nephelometric immunoassay for lipoprotein(a) quantification in human serum was evaluated using the Behring Nephelometer Analyzer. The assay exhibited a good linearity in the concentration range of 110-1,770 mg/l; at higher concentrations, samples were automatically diluted by a factor of 4. The method is simple, robust, and shows an excellent stability of the calibration curve over several weeks. Intra-assay and day-to-day coefficients of variation were 2% and 4.5%, respectively. The method correlated well with electroimmunodiffusion (r = 0.977; n = 123; P = 0.0001). Unspecific turbidity as expressed by an elevated blank value occurred in 3% of all freshly measured samples (n = 392). Storage of the samples for 1 week at 4 degrees C had no significant influence on the results. Frozen sera, on the other hand, cannot be assayed by this method. We believe that this assay is well suited for use in clinical routine work.