Background: Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) is a promising biomarker for acute kidney injury that is beginning to be used in clinical practice in addition to research studies. The current study describes an independent validation and comparison of five commercially available NGAL assays, focusing on urine samples. This is an essential step in the translation of this marker to clinical use in terms of allowing valid inter-study comparison and generation of robust results. Methods: Two CE (Conformité Europé enne)-marked assays, the NGAL Test (BioPorto) on Siemens ADVIA w 1800 and the ARCHITECT Urine NGAL assay on i2000SR (Abbott Laboratories), and three research-use-only (RUO) ELISAs (R&D Systems, Hycult and BioPorto) were evaluated. Imprecision, parallelism, recovery, selectivity, limit of quantitation (LOQ), vulnerability to interference and hook effect were assessed and inter-assay agreement was determined using 68 urine samples from patients with various renal diseases and healthy controls. Results: The Abbott and R&D Systems assays demonstrated satisfactory performance for all parameters tested. However for the other three assays evaluated, problems were identified with LOQ (BioPorto/ADVIA w ), parallelism (BioPorto ELISA) or several parameters (Hycult). Between-method agreement varied with the Hycult assay in particular being markedly different and highlighting issues with standardization and form of NGAL measured. Conclusions: Variability exists between the five NGAL assays in terms of their performance and this should be taken into account when interpreting results from the various clinical or research studies measuring urinary NGAL.
'Add-on' tests can only be safely performed on a proportion of routine analytes. For some analytes, storage conditions affect their suitability for delayed analysis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.