Advertisement

Comparison of glomerular filtration rate estimation using Jaffé and enzymatic creatinine assays in diabetic patients

  • Farshad Niazpour
  • Alireza Bahiraee
  • Ensieh Nasli Esfahani
  • Maryam Abdollahi
  • Fatemeh Bandarian
  • Farideh RaziEmail author
Research article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) develops an end-stage renal failure and is a major cause of death in diabetic patients. A GFR below 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 is one of the main markers of DKD. Therefore, the development of an accurate test for diagnosis and monitoring of the mentioned disease would be essential. Here, we examined the impacts of two different kits with different methods for creatinine measurement on the GFR values.

Methods

Blood samples were collected from 80 diabetic patients referring to the clinical laboratory. The levels of serum creatinine were assessed using Jaffé and enzymatic assays by kits from two different manufacturers. Then to assess the eGFR levels, the MDRD equation was used. Further descriptive parameters of both methods and correlation of methods were also calculated.

Results

Descriptive analysis of the data demonstrates a slight increase in the serum creatinine measured by Jaffé assay which leads to a substantial decrease in the levels of eGFR compared to the eGFR calculated by the enzymatic assay. Moreover, eGFR over 60 mL/min/1.73 m2in enzymatic assay was observed in 27.5% of participants while eGFR of the same participants was below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 when it was measured by Jaffé method. Consequently, 27.5% positive discordant cases were reported by Jaffé assay followed by misclassifying them as DKD patients compared with the enzymatic assay.

Conclusion

While using Jaffé assay, a low level of eGFR is observed which generates more misclassification into the DKD group and demands to an inclusive consideration by physicians in order to diagnose and monitor the DKD patients.

Keywords

Diabetic kidney disease Creatinine, glomerular filtration rate Jaffé assay Enzymatic assay 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Diabetes Research Center, EMRI, Tehran University of Medical Sciences andis acknowledged by authors.

Funding information

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Institute (EMRI) affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Gheith O, Farouk N, Nampoory N, Halim MA, Al-Otaibi T. Diabetic kidney disease: world wide difference of prevalence and risk factors. J Nephropharmacol. 2016;5(1):49.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anders H-J, Huber TB, Isermann B, Schiffer M. CKD in diabetes: diabetic kidney disease versus nondiabetic kidney disease. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2018;14(6):361–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrishami Z, Nasli-Esfahani E, Razmandeh R, NI BL, Bandarian F. Iran diabetes research roadmap (Idrr) study; gap analysis of diabetes complications in iran: a review article. Iranian Journal of Public Health. 2017;46(Suppl 1):32–38.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Persson F, Rossing P. Diagnosis of diabetic kidney disease: state of the art and future perspective. Kidney Int Suppl. 2018;8(1):2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fioretto P. Diabetic kidney disease: natural history and pathophysiology. Medicographia. 2016;38:49–55.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang SS. Albuminuria and diabetic nephropathy. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2008;5(Suppl 4):974–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tang SC, Chan GC, Lai KN. Recent advances in managing and understanding diabetic nephropathy. F1000Research. 2016;5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gerard SK, Khayam-Bashi H. Characterization of creatinine error in ketotic patients. A prospective comparison of alkaline picrate methods with an enzymatic method. Am J Clin Pathol. 1985;84(5):659–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stevens PE, Levin A, M. for the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Chronic Kidney Disease Guideline Development Work Group. Evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease: Synopsis of the kidney disease: improving global outcomes 2012 clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(11):825–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Myers GL, Miller WG, Coresh J, Fleming J, Greenberg N, Greene T, et al. Recommendations for improving serum creatinine measurement: a report from the laboratory working Group of the National Kidney Disease Education Program. Clin Chem. 2006;52(1):5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cobbaert CM, Baadenhuijsen H, Weykamp CW. Prime time for enzymatic creatinine methods in pediatrics. Clin Chem. 2009;55(3):549–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Association AD. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2014. Diabetes care. 2014;37(Supplement 1):S14–S80.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lovrencic MV, et al. Impact of creatinine methodology on glomerular filtration rate estimation in diabetes. World J Diabetes. 2017;8(5):222–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Delanghe JR, Speeckaert MM. Creatinine determination according to Jaffe—what does it stand for? NDT Plus. 2011;4(2):83–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Srisawasdi P, Chaichanajarernkul U, Teerakanjana N, Vanavanan S, Kroll MH. Exogenous interferences with Jaffe creatinine assays: addition of sodium dodecyl sulfate to reagent eliminates bilirubin and total protein interference with Jaffe methods. J Clin Lab Anal. 2010;24(3):123–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Owen LJ, Keevil BG. Does bilirubin cause interference in Roche creatinine methods? Clin Chem. 2007;53(2):370–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee E, Collier CP, White CA. Interlaboratory variability in plasma Creatinine measurement and the relation with estimated glomerular filtration rate and chronic kidney disease diagnosis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;12(1):29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    rd, et al., editors. Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations. Boston: ButterworthsButterworth Publishers, a division of Reed Publishing; 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, Stevens LA, Zhang YL, Hendriksen S, et al. Using standardized serum creatinine values in the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(4):247–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheuiche AV, Soares AA, Camargo EG, Weinert LS, Camargo JL, Silveiro SP. Comparison between IDMS-traceable Jaffe and enzymatic creatinine assays for estimation of glomerular filtration rate by the CKD-EPI equation in healthy and diabetic subjects. Clin Biochem. 2013;46(15):1423–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boutten A, et al. Enzymatic but not compensated Jaffe methods reach the desirable specifications of NKDEP at normal levels of creatinine. Results of the French multicentric evaluation. Clin Chim Acta. 2013;419:132–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Greenberg N, Roberts WL, Bachmann LM, Wright EC, Dalton RN, Zakowski JJ, et al. Specificity characteristics of 7 commercial creatinine measurement procedures by enzymatic and Jaffe method principles. Clin Chem. 2012;58(2):391–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmidt RL, Straseski JA, Raphael KL, Adams AH, Lehman CM. A risk assessment of the Jaffe vs enzymatic method for Creatinine measurement in an outpatient population. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0143205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haugen HN. Glucose and acetone as sources of error in plasma “Creatinine” determinations. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1954;6(1):17–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Husdan H, Rapoport A. Estimation of creatinine by the Jaffe reaction. A comparison of three methods. Clin Chem. 1968;14(3):222–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Farshad Niazpour
    • 1
  • Alireza Bahiraee
    • 2
  • Ensieh Nasli Esfahani
    • 3
  • Maryam Abdollahi
    • 3
  • Fatemeh Bandarian
    • 4
  • Farideh Razi
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Biochemistry, School of MedicineTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of MedicineHormozgan University of Medical SciencesBandar AbbasIran
  3. 3.Diabetes Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences InstituteTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  4. 4.Metabolic Disorders Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Molecular-Cellular Sciences InstituteTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  5. 5.Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences InstituteTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran

Personalised recommendations