AUTHOR=Weiss Nathalie , Vierbaum Laura , Kremser Marcel , Kaufmann-Stoeck Anne , Kappler Silke , Ballert Silvia , Kabrodt Kathrin , Hunfeld Klaus-Peter , Schellenberg Ingo TITLE=Longitudinal evaluation of manufacturer-specific differences for high-sensitive CRP EQA results JOURNAL=Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences VOLUME=11 YEAR=2024 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2024.1401405 DOI=10.3389/fmolb.2024.1401405 ISSN=2296-889X ABSTRACT=Background

C-reactive protein (CRP) is an established serum biomarker for different pathologies such as tissue injury and inflammatory events. One rising area of interest is the incorporation of low concentrations of CRP, so called high-sensitive (hs-) CRP, in the risk assessment and treatment monitoring of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Many research projects and the resulting meta-analyses have reported controversial results for the use of hs-CRP, especially in the risk assessment of CVDs. However, since these analyses used different assays to detect hs-CRP, it is important to assess the current level of assay harmonization.

Methods

This paper analyzes data from 17 external quality assessment (EQA) surveys for hs-CRP conducted worldwide between 2018 and 2023. Each EQA survey consisted of two blinded samples. In 2020 the sample material changed from pooled serum to single-donor samples. The aim was to assess the current status of assay harmonization by a manufacturer-based approach, taking into consideration the clinical decision limits for hs-CRP risk-stratification of CVDs as well as the scatter of results.

Results

Our analyses show that harmonization has increased in recent years from median differences of up to 50% to below 20%, with one exception that showed an increasing bias throughout the observed period. After changing sample materials from pools to single-donor samples, the coefficient of variation decreased to below 10% with one exception. Nevertheless, even these differences in the clinical setting could lead to disparate classification of patients depending on the assay used.

Conclusion

While there was a positive trend towards harmonization, meta-analysis of different risk-score publications should stratify their analysis by assay to account for the manufacturer-specific differences observed in this paper. Furthermore, assays are currently traceable to different international standard preparations, which might have a negative impact on future harmonization.