Last data update: May 06, 2024. (Total: 46732 publications since 2009)
Records 1-4 (of 4 Records) |
Query Trace: Kimberly MM[original query] |
---|
Reference measurement procedure for total glycerides by isotope dilution GC-MS
Edwards SH , Stribling SL , Pyatt SD , Kimberly MM . Clin Chem 2012 58 (4) 768-76 BACKGROUND: The CDC's Lipid Standardization Program established the chromotropic acid (CA) reference measurement procedure (RMP) as the accuracy base for standardization and metrological traceability for triglyceride testing. The CA RMP has several disadvantages, including lack of ruggedness. It uses obsolete instrumentation and hazardous reagents. To overcome these problems the CDC developed an isotope dilution GC-MS (ID-GC-MS) RMP for total glycerides in serum. METHODS: We diluted serum samples with Tris-HCl buffer solution and spiked 200-mcL aliquots with [(13)C(3)]-glycerol. These samples were incubated and hydrolyzed under basic conditions. The samples were dried, derivatized with acetic anhydride and pyridine, extracted with ethyl acetate, and analyzed by ID-GC-MS. Linearity, imprecision, and accuracy were evaluated by analyzing calibrator solutions, 10 serum pools, and a standard reference material (SRM 1951b). RESULTS: The calibration response was linear for the range of calibrator concentrations examined (0-1.24 mmol/L) with a slope and intercept of 0.717 (95% CI, 0.7123-0.7225) and 0.3122 (95% CI, 0.3096-0.3140), respectively. The limit of detection was 14.8 mcmol/L. The mean %CV for the sample set (serum pools and SRM) was 1.2%. The mean %bias from NIST isotope dilution MS values for SRM 1951b was 0.7%. CONCLUSIONS: This ID-GC-MS RMP has the specificity and ruggedness to accurately quantify total glycerides in the serum pools used in the CDC's Lipid Standardization Program and demonstrates sufficiently acceptable agreement with the NIST primary RMP for total glyceride measurement. |
Non-HDL cholesterol shows improved accuracy for cardiovascular risk score classification compared to direct or calculated LDL cholesterol in a dyslipidemic population
van Deventer HE , Miller WG , Myers GL , Sakurabayashi I , Bachmann LM , Caudill SP , Dziekonski A , Edwards S , Kimberly MM , Korzun WJ , Leary ET , Nakajima K , Nakamura M , Shamburek RD , Vetrovec GW , Warnick GR , Remaley AT . Clin Chem 2011 57 (3) 490-501 BACKGROUND: Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score classification by direct LDL cholesterol (dLDL-C), calculated LDL cholesterol (cLDL-C), and non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C) compared to classification by reference measurement procedures (RMPs) performed at the CDC. METHODS: We examined 175 individuals, including 138 with CVD or conditions that may affect LDL-C measurement. dLDL-C measurements were performed using Denka, Kyowa, Sekisui, Serotec, Sysmex, UMA, and Wako reagents. cLDL-C was calculated by the Friedewald equation, using each manufacturer's direct HDL-C assay measurements, and total cholesterol and triglyceride measurements by Roche and Siemens (Advia) assays, respectively. RESULTS: For participants with triglycerides <2.26 mmol/L (<200 mg/dL), the overall misclassification rate for the CVD risk score ranged from 5% to 17% for cLDL-C methods and 8% to 26% for dLDL-C methods when compared to the RMP. Only Wako dLDL-C had fewer misclassifications than its corresponding cLDL-C method (8% vs 17%; P < 0.05). Non-HDL-C assays misclassified fewer patients than dLDL-C for 4 of 8 methods (P < 0.05). For participants with triglycerides ≥2.26 mmol/L (≥200 mg/dL) and <4.52 mmol/L (<400 mg/dL), dLDL-C methods, in general, performed better than cLDL-C methods, and non-HDL-C methods showed better correspondence to the RMP for CVD risk score than either dLDL-C or cLDL-C methods. CONCLUSIONS: Except for hypertriglyceridemic individuals, 7 of 8 dLDL-C methods failed to show improved CVD risk score classification over the corresponding cLDL-C methods. Non-HDL-C showed overall the best concordance with the RMP for CVD risk score classification of both normal and hypertriglyceridemic individuals. |
Proposed serum cholesterol reference measurement procedure by gas chromatography-isotope dilution mass spectrometry
Edwards SH , Kimberly MM , Pyatt SD , Stribling SL , Dobbin KD , Myers GL . Clin Chem 2011 57 (4) 614-22 BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to establish a mass spectrometry reference measurement procedure (RMP) for cholesterol to use in the CDC's standardization programs. We explored a gas chromatography-isotope dilution mass spectrometry (GC-IDMS) procedure using a multilevel standard calibration curve to quantify samples with varying cholesterol concentrations. METHODS: We calibrated the mass spectrometry instrument by isotope dilution with a pure primary standard reference material and an isotopically enriched cholesterol analog as the internal standard (IS). We diluted the serum samples with Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4, 0.05 mol/L, 0.25% Triton X-100) before analysis. We used 17 serum pools, 10 native samples, and 2 standard reference materials (SRMs). We compared the GC-IDMS measurements with the CDC's modified Abell-Levy-Brodie-Kendall (AK) RMP measurements and assessed method accuracy by analyzing 2 SRMs. We evaluated the procedure for lack of interference by analyzing serum spiked with a mixture of 7 sterols. RESULTS: The mean percent bias between the AK and the GC-IDMS RMP was 1.6% for all samples examined. The mean percent bias from NIST's RMP was 0.5% for the SRMs. The total %CVs for SRM 1951b levels I and II were 0.61 and 0.73%, respectively. We found that none of the sterols investigated interfered with the cholesterol measurement. CONCLUSIONS: The low imprecision, linear response, lack of interferences, and acceptable bias vs the NIST primary RMP qualifies this procedure as an RMP for determining serum cholesterol. The CDC will adopt and implement this GC-IDMS procedure for cholesterol standardization. |
Seven direct methods for measuring HDL and LDL cholesterol compared with ultracentrifugation reference measurement procedures
Miller WG , Myers GL , Sakurabayashi I , Bachmann LM , Caudill SP , Dziekonski A , Edwards S , Kimberly MM , Korzun WJ , Leary ET , Nakajima K , Nakamura M , Nilsson G , Shamburek RD , Vetrovec GW , Warnick GR , Remaley AT . Clin Chem 2010 56 (6) 977-86 BACKGROUND: Methods from 7 manufacturers and 1 distributor for directly measuring HDL cholesterol (C) and LDL-C were evaluated for imprecision, trueness, total error, and specificity in nonfrozen serum samples. METHODS: We performed each direct method according to the manufacturer's instructions, using a Roche/Hitachi 917 analyzer, and compared the results with those obtained with reference measurement procedures for HDL-C and LDL-C. Imprecision was estimated for 35 runs performed with frozen pooled serum specimens and triplicate measurements on each individual sample. Sera from 37 individuals without disease and 138 with disease (primarily dyslipidemic and cardiovascular) were measured by each method. Trueness and total error were evaluated from the difference between the direct methods and reference measurement procedures. Specificity was evaluated from the dispersion in differences observed. RESULTS: Imprecision data based on 4 frozen serum pools showed total CVs <3.7% for HDL-C and <4.4% for LDL-C. Bias for the nondiseased group ranged from -5.4% to 4.8% for HDL-C and from -6.8% to 1.1% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from -8.6% to 8.8% for HDL-C and from -11.8% to 4.1% for LDL-C. Total error for the nondiseased group ranged from -13.4% to 13.6% for HDL-C and from -13.3% to 13.5% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from -19.8% to 36.3% for HDL-C and from -26.6% to 31.9% for LDL-C. CONCLUSIONS: Six of 8 HDL-C and 5 of 8 LDL-C direct methods met the National Cholesterol Education Program total error goals for nondiseased individuals. All the methods failed to meet these goals for diseased individuals, however, because of lack of specificity toward abnormal lipoproteins. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 06, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure