[1]雷 航,刘艳婷,肖光军,等.糖化白蛋白和糖化血清蛋白实验室检测现状分析[J].医学信息,2023,36(14):116-120.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.14.023]
　LEI Hang,LIU Yan-ting,XIAO Guang-jun,et al.Analysis of the Status of Laboratory Detection of Glycated Albumin and Glycated Serum Protein[J].Journal of Medical Information,2023,36(14):116-120.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.14.023]
点击复制

糖化白蛋白和糖化血清蛋白实验室检测现状分析()
分享到：

医学信息[ISSN:1006-1959/CN:61-1278/R]

卷:
36卷
期数:
2023年14期
页码:
116-120
栏目:
论著
出版日期:
2023-07-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Analysis of the Status of Laboratory Detection of Glycated Albumin and Glycated Serum Protein
文章编号:
1006-1959（2023）14-0116-05
作者:
雷 航; 刘艳婷; 肖光军; 等
（遂宁市中心医院检验科，四川 遂宁 629000）
Author(s):
LEI Hang; LIU Yan-ting; XIAO Guang-jun; et al.
(Department of Clinical Laboratory,Suining Central Hospital,Suining 629000,Sichuan,China)
关键词:
糖化白蛋白; 糖化血清蛋白; 室间质量评价; 一致性
Keywords:
Glycated albumin; Glycated serum protein; External quality assessment; Consistency
分类号:
R446
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.14.023
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 调查我国临床实验室糖化白蛋白（glycated albumin，GA）和糖化血清蛋白（glycated serum protein，GSP）的检测现状，为其质量改进提供指导。方法 将2022年3次室间质量评价（external quality assessment，EQA）活动中GA测定和GSP测定的实验室回报结果按试剂厂家进行分组，对实验室数≥10家的各组数据进行分析。结果 2022年3次EQA活动中，GA测定依次有358、352、358家临床实验室回报了调查结果，GSP测定则依次有359、348、355家实验室回报了调查结果。按试剂厂家对回报结果分组后，实验室使用数≥10家的GA测定试剂有9种，而GSP测定试剂则有14种，其中GSP回报结果以μmol/L为单位的试剂有5种、以mmol/L为单位的试剂有9种。检测同一EQA样品时，各组GA检测结果的变异系数为1.96%~35.14%，其中位数的最大值与最小值比值为1.18~1.40；GSP的检测结果以mmol/L为单位时，各组的变异系数则为1.02%~17.30%，其中位数的最大值与最小值比值为1.44~3.08；GSP的检测结果以μmol/L为单位时，各组的变异系数为0.05%~43.48%，其中位数的最大值与最小值比值为1.28~2.95；而将GSP检测结果的单位由μmol/L转换为mmol/L时，各组中位数的最大值与最小值比值则为10.26~17.16。结论 GA测定和GSP测定在不同试剂间及同一试剂不同实验室间的检测结果均存在较大差异，虽然通过EQA活动可改善实验室间检测结果的一致性，但仍急需建立GSP、GA测定的参考方法或制备具有互通性的参考物质，以帮助试剂厂家建立完整的量值溯源链，从而实现检验结果同质化和结果互认。
Abstract:
Objective To investigate the detection status of glycated albumin (GA) and glycated serum protein (GSP) in clinical laboratories in China, and to provide guidance for its quality improvement.Methods The return results of GA and GSP in the three external quality assessment (EQA) activities in 2022 were grouped by reagent manufacturer, and the data of each group with the number of laboratories ≥10 were analyzed.Results Among the three EQA activities in 2022, 358, 352 and 358 clinical laboratories reported the survey results for GA assay, and 359, 348 and 355 laboratories reported the survey results for GSP assay. After grouping according to the results of the reagent manufacturers, there were 9 kinds of GA determination reagents used in the laboratory ≥10, while there were 14 kinds of GSP determination reagents. Among them, there were 5 kinds of reagents in the unit of μmol/L and 9 kinds of reagents in the unit of mmol/L. When the same EQA sample was detected, the coefficient of variation of GA detection results in each group was 1.96%-35.14%, and the ratio of the maximum value to the minimum value of the median was 1.18-1.40.When the detection results of GSP were in the unit of mmol/L, the coefficient of variation of each group was 1.02%-17.30 %, and the ratio of the maximum value to the minimum value was 1.44-3.08. When the detection results of GSP were in the unit of μmol/L, the coefficient of variation of each group was 0.05%-43.48%, and the ratio of the maximum value to the minimum value of the median was 1.28-2.95. When the unit of GSP detection results was changed from μmol/L to mmol/L, the ratio of the maximum value to the minimum value of the median in each group was 10.26-17.16.Conclusion The GA and GSP test results varied greatly between different reagents and different laboratories of the same reagent. Although the consistency of test results between laboratories can be improved through EQA activities, it is still urgent to establish a reference method for the determination of GSP and GA, or to prepare a reference material with interoperability, so as to help reagent manufacturers establish a complete quantitative traceability chain. Finally, the homogeneity of test results and mutual recognition of results are realized.

参考文献/References:

[1]中华医学会糖尿病学分会.中国血糖监测临床应用指南(2021年版)[J].中华糖尿病杂志,2021,13(10):936-948.[2]莫一菲,包玉倩.《中国血糖监测临床应用指南(2021年版)》解读[J].中华糖尿病杂志,2021,13(10):926-929.[3]中华医学会糖尿病学分会.中国2型糖尿病防治指南(2020年版)[J].国际内分泌代谢杂志,2021,41(5):482-548.[4]肖光军,杨娜,李祥坤,等.血清降钙素原实验室检测现状分析[J].临床医药实践,2019,28(1):50-54.[5]中华医学会肾脏病学分会专家组.糖尿病肾脏疾病临床诊疗中国指南[J].中华肾脏病杂志,2021,37(3):255-304.[6]贺小宁,张雅雯,阮贞,等.中国2型糖尿病患者慢性并发症患病率与次均医疗费用研究[J].中华内分泌代谢杂志,2019,35(3):200-205.[7]何成钦,刘艳婷,杨娜,等.新鲜赋值血清多点校准提高不同检测系统间总胆红素检测结果的一致性[J].检验医学与临床,2022,19(9):1201-1204,1208.[8]罗燕玲,王建兵,林海标,等.赋值血清校准总胆固醇、三酰甘油前后测量结果的一致性[J].广东医学,2015,36(23):3631-3633.[9]钱志平,陈蕾,徐俊驰,等.5’-核苷酸酶不同检测系统测量结果一致性探讨[J].实验与检验医学,2020,38(4):666-669,671.[10]孙江漫,李敏,邵燕,等.冰冻人血清胱抑素C标准物质量值传递的评价[J].国际检验医学杂志,2022,43(24):2945-2948.[11]林斐然,欧元祝,刘文彬,等.不同品牌校准品对血清碱性磷酸酶检测结果可比性的影响[J].检验医学,2022,37(2):183-187.[12]李东阳,王勇,朱林敏,等.2019-2021年参加国家卫生健康委临检中心室间质评结果分析[J].中国实验诊断学,2022,26(7):1020-1025.[13]刘在栓,贺勇,陈捷,等.基于互联网医院实现线上检验项目同质化的管理构想[J].国际检验医学杂志,2022,43(15):1911-1914.[14]张丽,蒲泽晏,肖光军,等.应用飞行检查结果分析遂宁地区临床实验室常规化学项目的检测质量[J].临床医药实践,2022,31(12):920-926.[15]肖光军,刘艳婷,杨洪,等.四川省遂宁地区表观健康成年人群血浆FMN,FMN/TP比值及FMN/ALB比值参考区间的建立[J].现代检验医学杂志,2019,34(2):56-59,63.[16]杨琳,肖光军,杨洪,等.血浆与血清样本果糖胺检测结果的比较分析[J].医学信息,2018,31(19):158-160.[17]菅朝慧,赵爱华,许怡婷,等.唾液1,5-脱水葡萄糖醇检测方法的建立[J].中华糖尿病杂志,2020,12(1):25-29.

相似文献/References:

[1]杨春霞.血糖、糖化白蛋白、糖化血红蛋白在糖尿病诊断中的价值[J].医学信息,2023,36(13):141.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.13.030]
　YANG Chun-xia.Value of Blood Glucose, Glycated Albumin, Glycated Hemoglobin in the Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus[J].Journal of Medical Information,2023,36(14):141.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.13.030]

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01