Comparison of Second- and Third-Generation Parathyroid Hormone Test Results in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Agreement of Parathyroid Hormone Status Measured by Intact and Biointact Parathyroid Hormone Assays among Chronic Kidney Disease Patients and Its Correlation with Bone Turnover Parameters

Background

This study aimed to determine the agreement between intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) and biointact parathyroid hormone (bio-PTH) assays and to correlate them with bone markers.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included 180 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3b, 4 and 5D. We measured their iPTH, bio-PTH, 25-hydroxyvitaminD (25(OH)D), C-terminal telopeptide collagen (CTX), procollagen 1 intact N-terminal propeptide (P1NP), calcium, phosphate and alkaline phosphatase (ALP).

Results

Higher iPTH than bio-PTH concentrations were seen in CKD stages 3b, 4 and 5D (58[62] versus 55[67] pg/mL, 94[85] versus 85[76] pg/mL and 378[481] versus 252[280] pg/mL, respectively). Both PTH assays showed good agreement among all the subjects, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.832 (P-value < 0.001). The Passing-Bablok showed that the equation for the bio-PTH was PTH = 0.64 iPTH + 15.80, with r = 0.99. The Bland-Altman plots showed increased bias with an increasing PTH concentration. Both PTH assays showed a high positive correlation with CTX and P1NP, a moderate correlation with phosphate, a low correlation with ALP and calcium, and a negligible correlation with phosphate and 25(OH)D.

Conclusion

The iPTH and bio-PTH assays were in agreement, but their bias increased with the PTH concentration. The unacceptable large bias indicates that the two assays cannot be used interchangeably. They had a variable correlation with the bone parameters.

Full-length versus intact PTH concentrations in pseudohypoparathyroidism type 1 and primary hyperparathyroidism: clinical evaluation of immunoassays in individuals from China

PURPOSE

The application of the third-generation parathyroid hormone (PTH) assay [PTH(1-84) assay] for evaluating PTH levels in patients with pseudohypoparathyroidism type-1 (PHP1) is less popular than the second-generation assay. Therefore, we aimed at examining the conformity between the PTH(1-84) assay and the intact PTH (iPTH) assay, specifically examining their performance in individuals with PHP1 versus individuals with primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT), compared to healthy controls.

METHODS

PTH(1-84) and iPTH assay were performed in patients with PHP1, patients with PHPT, and healthy volunteers. ∆PTH%, PTH(1-84)/iPTH (3^rd/2^nd ratio), iPTH/upper limit of normal (ULN), and PTH (1-84)/ULN of each group were calculated for comparison. Linear regression, Kappa conformity test, and Bland-Altman analysis of ∆PTH/mean of iPTH and PTH(1-84) (percent bias) plotted against the mean of iPTH and PTH(1-84) were performed to determine the conformance of PTH(1-84) assay with iPTH assay.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients with PHP1, 127 patients with PHPT, and 65 healthy volunteers were enrolled in this study. All the three groups showed strong linear relationship between iPTH and PTH (1-84) (r² = 0.9661, 0.7733, and 0.9575, respectively). No significant differences were noted in 3^rd/2^nd ratio (median 0.76 vs. 0.72) between the PHP1 and PHPT groups (p > 0.05). Conformity examination showed the Kappa value was 0.778 and 0.395 for PHP1 and PHPT groups respectively. No difference in the Kappa values was found between PHP1A and PHP1B subgroups. Bland-Altman plot demonstrated that the proportion of data points that were plotted within mean ± 1.96 SD in PHP1, PHPT and normal control groups were 96.3%, 93.7%, and 98.5%, respectively. The mean percent bias of the three groups were 26.1%, 31.2%, and 17.0%, respectively. The range of mean ± 1.96 SD of percent bias of the three groups were 2.2%-50.0%, -14.3%-76.6%, and 6.7%-27.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although iPTH and PTH(1-84) values were both lower in the present PHP1 cohort than in the PHPT cohort, there appear to be differences in the relative agreement between both immunoassays, and in the relationship between the two values, especially in comparison to healthy controls. Whether these differences are due to differential accumulation of C-terminal fragments or other factors requires further study.

Serum iPTH range in a reference population: From an integrated approach to vitamin D prevalence impact evaluation

BACKGROUND

The iPTH upper reference limit (URL) reported by our laboratory provider (Abbott Laboratories) at Tor Vergata University Hospital was evaluated by internal verification procedures as not representative of our population and resulting as underestimated. In this study, a new reference interval has been investigated and established by comparing a direct and an indirect method based on a statistical reduction from results stored in the laboratory database.

METHODS

For reference interval calculation from the healthy population, we analyzed a cohort of 100 blood donors (84% males and 16% females) screened with no bone-related and malabsorption diseases. We analyzed a cohort of 495 patients retrieved from more than 800 iPTH results by excluding subjects with pathological measurement for calcium, phosphorus, and creatinine for the reference interval evaluation. Patients with vitamin D results were included in the analysis. Vitamin D sufficiency status during the period from January to September 2020 was also evaluated by investigating 3,050 patients.

RESULTS

The iPTH reference interval of a healthy blood donor population was measured as 25.2-109.1 pg/mL (2.7-11.6 pmol/L) at 2.5 and 97.5 distribution percentile. The iPTH reference interval from data stored in the laboratory database was 19.3-112.5 pg/mL (2.0-11.9 pmol/L). Furthermore, 60% of the whole population had prevalently insufficient vitamin D concentration (<30 ng/dL; <75 nmol/L). The impact of vitamin D concentration on the iPTH reference interval was measured for insufficient vitamin D (<30 ng/dL; <75 nmol/L) as 15.2-127.7 pg/mL (1.6-13.5 pmol/L), desirable vitamin D (30-40 ng/ml; 75-100 nmol/L) as 25.6-105 pg/mL (2.7-10.7 pmol/L) and optimal vitamin D (>40 ng/ml; >100 nmol/L) as 26.2-89.2 pg/mL (2.8-9.4 pmol/L), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The URL reported in manufacturer datasheets likely refers to a normal population with non-pathological vitamin D levels. On the contrary, the considered population was mostly vitamin D insufficient, resulting in a URL shift. On this basis, we suggest describing in medical reports the iPTH range for vitamin D deficiency for diagnosis of primary hyperparathyroidism even when a specific vitamin D request is lacking. On the other hand, reporting optimal vitamin D-based iPTH reference interval could be clinically relevant in supplemented patients as a marker of treatment efficacy.