Next Article in Journal
Cardiac Computed Tomography Radiomics-Based Approach for the Detection of Left Ventricular Remodeling in Patients with Arterial Hypertension
Previous Article in Journal
Ultrasound Confirmation of the Multiple Loci Hypothesis of the Myofascial Trigger Point and the Diagnostic Importance of Specificity in the Elicitation of the Local Twitch Response
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/diagnostics12020320
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Comparative Study for Measuring Serum Ferritin Levels with Three Different Laboratory Methods: Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay versus Cobas e411 and Cobas Integra 400 Methods

by
Lotfi S. Bin Dahman
1,*,†,
Khalid M. Sumaily
2,†,
Essa M. Sabi
2,
Mohammed A. Hassan
3,
Abeer M. Bin Thalab
4,
Asrar S. Sayad
5,
Saleh M. Bin Kolaib
6 and
Fatima M. Alhadhrmi
6
1
Department of Medical Biochemistry, College of Medicine, Hadhramout University, Mukalla 50511, Yemen
2
Clinical Biochemistry Unit, Pathology Department, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh 11461, Saudi Arabia
3
Department of Medical Basic Sciences, College of Medicine, Hadhramout University, Mukalla 50511, Yemen
4
Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, Hadhramout University, Mukalla 50511, Yemen
5
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Hadhramout University, Mukalla 50511, Yemen
6
BSc Candidate of Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine, Hadhramout University, Mukalla 50511, Yemen
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Diagnostics 2022, 12(2), 320; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12020320
Submission received: 13 December 2021 / Revised: 9 January 2022 / Accepted: 24 January 2022 / Published: 27 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Pathology and Molecular Diagnostics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Different laboratory methods are used to measure serum ferritin levels as a marker of iron status in the general population. This study aimed to compare serum ferritin levels using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) versus immunochemiluminescence (Cobas e411) and immunoturbidimetric (Cobas Integra 400) methods in terms of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, and whether they can be used interchangeably. A comparative cross-sectional study enrolled one hundred and six adult Yemeni patients (33 males and 73 females) aged 18–55 years, recruited from the dermatology and cosmetic center of Hadhramout Modern Hospital, Mukalla, Yemen. Serum ferritin levels were measured using ELISA, Cobas e411, and Cobas Integra 400 methods. For method comparison, a paired-sample t-test was used. For the consistency between the three methods, they were analyzed with regression and Pearson correlation coefficient. For determining accuracy, a receiver operating curve (ROC) was used. Bias error between the methods was determined through a Bland–Altman plot analysis. Our results did not show any significant statistical difference between ELISA and Cobas e411 (52.55 ± 7.4 µg/L vs. 52.58 ± 7.5 µg/L, p = 0.967), while there were significantly higher values from Cobas Integra 400 results than Cobas e411 (56.31 ± 7.8 µg/L vs. 52.58 ± 7.5 µg/L, p < 0.001) and ELISA (52.55 ± 7.4 µg/L vs. 56.31 ± 7.8 µg/L, p < 0.001). According to the correlation coefficient and linear regression analysis, a strong association between ELISA with Cobas e411 (r = 0.993, p < 0.001) and Cobas Integra 400 results (r = 0.994, p < 0.001) were revealed. For determining accuracy, Cobas e411 and Cobas Integra 400 results showed higher sensitivity (92.0%; 90.0%) and specificity (97.7%; 99.9%) respectively. Additionally, the Bland–Altman plot analysis showed a high agreement between the ELISA and Cobas e411 methods (bias: −0.035). In contrast, there was a low agreement between the ELISA and Cobas Integra 400 methods (bias: −3.75). Similarly, the agreement between Cobas e411 and Cobas Integra 400 methods was low (bias: −3.72). Serum ferritin levels were measured by Cobas e411, and Cobas Integra 400 methods were strongly correlated with the ELISA results, with higher sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. However, further investigations with larger samples are required for improved accuracy and more precise results, and to determine whether they can be used interchangeably.

1. Introduction

Ferritin is the storage form of iron present mainly in the liver, spleen, and bone marrow, and it is used in iron recycling for hematopoiesis.
As a reflection of iron storage in healthy people, a little amount of iron is found in the plasma and serum of humans [1,2]. Because a low serum ferritin level is commonly used as a marker for iron depletion [2], interpreting serum ferritin values in the presence of acute or chronic inflammation [3,4] could be difficult, as ferritin remains raised in iron-overload conditions and inflammation [5,6,7]. With the further usage of ferritin level being widely employed as a marker of iron stores and status, it is vital to identify if all of the methods for determining ferritin levels can detect and discriminate all conceivable iron states, as well as each method’s comparability among measurement systems.
Serum ferritin concentrations as a marker of iron status are measured using a variety of laboratory procedures. Regarding biological standardization, the World Health Organization (WHO) produced reference materials for developing tests and evaluating laboratory performance. There have been at least three reference materials developed: the first (liver), the second (spleen), and the third (recombinant) [8,9,10]. As a result, the WHO is revising its serum ferritin guidelines to assess iron status [11,12]. Furthermore, the WHO acknowledges that ferritin is commonly measured in serum/plasma using immunoassays; nevertheless, there are no clear recommendations on the variability of analytical procedures [13].
These methods are the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), immunochemiluminescence, the microparticle enzyme immunoassay (MEIA), and microarray-based technologies [14,15,16].
The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is one of the most sensitive immunoassays available for ferritin detection. The typical detection range for se-rum/plasma ferritin by ELISA was around 0.01–0.1 ng, but its sensitivity depends on the particular characteristics of the antibody–antigen interaction. At the same time, some substrates have yielded enhanced chemiluminescent or fluorescent signals to improve ferritin results, where sensitivity and specificity of this technique were 91%, and 83%, respectively [17]. Moreover, immunoturbidimetric and immunochemiluminescence methods were widely used for serum ferritin detection [17].
Since these laboratory methods are used with different test principles, reference ranges, and detection limits, this study therefore aimed to compare serum ferritin levels measured by ELISA, as the reference method, versus the Cobas e411 and Cobas Integra 400 methods, in terms of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, and whether they can be used interchangeably.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Patient Selection

A total of one hundred and six adult Yemeni patients, 33 males and 73 females, were randomly enrolled in a comparative cross-sectional study. The patients were recruited from the dermatology and cosmetic center of Hadhramout Modern Hospital, Mukalla, Yemen, from 1 March to 30 June 2020. Most patients suffered from hair loss problems. Based on the WHO cut-off values of ferritin [13] iron deficiency—deficient (ferritin levels less than 15 µg/L), normal iron (ferritin levels 15–150 µg/L) and iron overload (ferritin levels greater than 150 µg/L)—only 11.4% of patients had iron overload, and the remaining had normal iron (44.3%) and iron deficiency (44.3%). Both cut-off values were determined using ELISA, Cobas e411, and Cobas Integra 400 methods. Patients with comorbidities (chronic inflammation, liver diseases, renal diseases, immunological diseases, malignancies) and prolonged iron supplement intake were excluded. Samples with hemolysis, lipemia, and jaundice were also excluded. After consenting participants, the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medicine College, Hadhramout University, Yemen, according to the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.2. Data Collection and Tools

The data was collected using a self-administrated pretested questionnaire collected by the Student of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Department of College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Hadhramout University. The questionnaire focused on sociodemographic (age and sex, iron status, and severity of infection/inflammation), medical history (chronic inflammation, liver diseases, chronic renal diseases, immunological diseases, and malignancies), and the ferritin detection methods used.

2.3. Blood Sample Collection and Serum Ferritin Measurement

Each participant had ten milliliters of venous blood drawn and quickly transported to the laboratory. After that, the serum was separated and placed in freezers at −20 °C until the analyses were completed.
Thawing freezing was avoided by dividing them into aliquots. Serum ferritin levels were measured using STAT FAX 4700 ELISA (Awareness Technology, Inc., Palm City, FL, USA), Cobas e411, and Cobas Integra 400 methods (Roche Diagnostics, CH-6343 Rotkreuz, Switzerland). The investigations were performed in the Hadhramout Modern Hospital Laboratories, Mukalla, Yemen.

2.4. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) Method

We used a solid-phase sandwich assay based on a streptavidin-biotin principle described by the manufacturer’s constructions. In brief, 96 wells were coated with 200 μL mouse anti-ferritin antibody (Cat. No.: RCD012R, BioVendor Laboratory Medicine Inc., Karasak, Czech Republic). Then, 20 µL of each calibrator, control, and serum was added into the corresponding labeled wells in duplicate, and 200 µL of the conjugate working solution (mouse anti-ferritin monoclonal antibody-horseradish peroxidase conjugate) was added into wells and incubated on a shaker (200 rpm) for 30 min at room temperature. After incubation, the wells were washed five times with 300 µL of washing solution (phosphate-buffered saline). After washing, 150 µL of TMB substrate (tetramethylbenzidine) was added to each well and incubated for 20 min at room temperature. After incubation, 50 µL/well of stop solution (1 M H2SO4) was added. The density of the color produced was measured at 45 nm using a microplate reader. A standard curve was generated, and values for unknown samples were extrapolated.

2.5. Cobas e411 Method

First incubation (9 min): a sandwich complex was formed by mixing 10 μL of a sample with a monoclonal antibody specific to ferritin marked with biotin, and a monoclonal antibody specific to ferritin marked with ruthenium. After adding streptavidin-covered microparticles, the complex was coupled to a solid phase by biotin and streptavidin interaction. The reaction mixture was aspired into a measurement cell, where microparticles were magnetically caught by the electrode surface. A photomultiplier was used to monitor chemiluminescence emission caused by voltage application on electrodes.

2.6. Cobas Integra 400 Method

Human-driven ferritin showed agglutination with latex particles covered with anti-ferritin antibodies in the expanded particle surface immunoturbidimetric test. Precipitation was turbidimetric at 542 nm. General characteristics of the methods used are summarized in Table 1.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

For the statistical analysis, SPSS version 21 was used. Serum ferritin level is presented as mean and standard deviations. Number and percentage were used for categorical variables. The Shapiro test analyzed the normal distribution of the variables. A paired sample t-test was performed to show the mean difference of the methods. The relationship between the methods was assessed using correlation coefficient and linear regression analysis. Receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis was used to determine sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Bland–Altman plot analysis [18] was used to estimate the bias error between the approaches. The difference in means between the two measures of ferritin level (g/L) was defined as bias and presented as mean SD, and 1.96 SD was stated as the bounds of agreement (95 percent confidence intervals of the bias). If the bias between two approaches was minimal and the limits of agreement were narrow, the two methods were interpreted as equal [18]. These methods follow the measurement procedure recommendations for method comparison studies published by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute in 2013 [19]. We conducted the statistical analysis at 95% confidence level, and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics of the Study Participants

The baseline characteristics of the study participants are presented in Table 1. Overall, there were 106 participants—33 were male (31.1%), and 73 were female (68.9%)—with a mean age of 31.57 ± 9.1 (Table 2). Most participants had iron deficiency (44.3%) or normal iron (44.3%). The remaining had an iron overload (11.4%).

3.2. Comparison of the Mean Serum Ferritin Concentrations between the Methods

Our study did not show any significant statistical difference between the ELISA and Cobas e411 results (52.55 ± 7.4 µg/L vs. 52.58 ± 7.5 µg/L, p = 0.967). However, serum ferritin levels were significantly higher from Cobas Integra 400 results than Cobas e411 and ELISA (56.31 ± 7.8 µg/L vs. 52.58 ± 7.5 µg/L, p < 0.001; 52.55 ± 7.4 µg/L vs. 56.31 ± 7.8 µg/L, p < 0.001, respectively). Table 3 indicates an acceptable precision between the ELISA and Cobas e411 results.

3.3. Sensitivity, Specificity, and Accuracy of Methods for Serum Ferritin Measurement

Furthermore, the ROC curve indicates the overall sensitivity and specificity of ELISA and Cobas Integra 400 Plus, compared with Cobas e411 as the reference method, using the ROC analysis at a 95% confidence interval (Table 4). Although the sample was small, the Cobas e411 showed a significant agreement with the ELISA (89.4%) and Cobas Integra 400 methods (89.4%). For determining accuracy, the sensitivity of the Cobas e411 method was 92.0%, higher than the Cobas Integra 400 method (90.0%). Our study revealed that the Cobas Integra 400 results had the highest specificity (99.9%).

3.4. Association between Methods Using Corelation Coefficient and Linear Regression Analysis

According to the results of correlation coefficient, there was a positive correlation between ELISA as the reference method with Cobas e411 (r = 0.993, p < 0.001) and Cobas Integra 400 methods (r = 0.994, p < 0.001) (Figure 1a,b). Moreover, we found a positive correlation between the Cobas e411 and Cobas Integra 400 results (r = 0.996, p < 0.001) (Figure 1c). In contrast, the linear regression equation for serum ferritin levels measured with ELISA compared to the Cobas e411 and Cobas Integra 400 methods (y = 1.0x − 0.98; R2 = 0987, y = 1.0x − 0.94; R2 = 0.989, respectively), while the results between the Cobas e411 and Cobas Integra 400 methods were: y = 0.87x − 0.95; R2 = 0.992.

3.5. Agreement between the Methods Using Bland–Altman Plot Analysis

For agreement between the compared methods, the Bland–Altman plot analysis showed high agreement between the ELISA and Cobas e411 methods (bias: −0.035) (Table 5 and Figure 2a). In contrast, there was a low agreement between the ELISA and Cobas Integra 400 methods (bias: −3.75). Similarly, the agreement between Cobas e411 and Cobas Integra 400 methods was low (bias: −3.72) (Table 5 and Figure 2b,c).

4. Discussion

Measuring ferritin in human serum or plasma in the general population is essential to investigate the prevalence and distribution of iron deficiency and iron overload, thus leading to proper intervention and therapy, and the ability to evaluate the impact and safety implemented in public health programs. The comparability of ferritin results from patient to patient for the differential diagnosis of iron deficiency overload has a critical role in clinical decisions and the appropriate use of resources. Furthermore, comparing data from various surveys performed by different methods should be possible.
Different laboratory methods were developed to quantify the ferritin levels in human serum or plasma from the above findings. The majority were based on antigen–antibody reactions. Moreover, immunoturbidimetric and immunochemiluminescence methods were developed. Recently, chemical autoanalyzer devices for the determination of human ferritin in serum/plasma have been created. The detection method for these devices varies, but is mainly based on turbidimetry and the chemiluminescence method. From the above findings, the present study used three different laboratory methods for serum ferritin level determination: antigen–antibody reaction (ELISA); immunoturbidimetric (Cobas Integra 400); and immunochemiluminescence (Cobas e411).
It is essential to highlight that using the correlation, intercept, slope, and agreement indicators in the statistical analysis indicates the relationship or the linearity between the compared methods and the agreement between these methods. The first result of the present study, regarding whether there was a significant difference between methods for measuring serum ferritin concentrations, revealed that the difference was statistically significant between ELISA with Cobas Integra 400 results. However, no significant difference was shown between the ELISA and Cobas e411 results. Secondly, the results of the methods were consistent according to the correlation coefficient and linear regression analysis. Similarly, human serum ferritin levels were evaluated with different laboratory methods in previous studies.
In a study by Ince et al. [20], serum ferritin levels were estimated using an unintegrated AU5800 analyzer and a Cobas e601 autoanalyzer. It was found that there was a positive correlation between the serum ferritin-assessed results using different methods, indicating that these methods could be used interchangeably, as the difference between them was within clinically acceptable limits. These findings were in agreement with our study.
For agreement between the methods, our study used the Bland–Altman plot analysis. A significantly different bias was observed between Cobas Integra 400 with ELISA and Cobas e411 results, but no considerable results were observed between ELISA and Cobas e411 in our results. However, there are conflicting results for the agreement between these methods. One study by Dupuy et al. [21] compared both turbidimetric and chemiluminescence methods with the radioimmunoassay (RIA). Their Bland–Altman Plot analysis revealed that the methods employed to compare serum ferritin levels were consistent with one another, indicating that these approaches might be used instead of the RIA method [21]. A recent study by Karakochuk et al. [22] measured serum ferritin concentrations using four different laboratory methods in non-pregnant Cambodian women with iron deficiency. They found that the serum ferritin results were different, using different calibrators, ferritin isoforms, and antibodies, and there was a poor agreement between the ELISA and immunochemiluminescence methods (bias: −11.5 to 44 μg/L) [22]. Furthermore, Zhang et al. [23] compared ferritin samples with varying concentrations in Architect i2000 (Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA) and Cobas e601 (Roche Diagnostics) devices with two different methods, and revealed that the average serum ferritin concentrations made in Cobas e601 was around 60.6 ng/mL, which was found to be higher than the average of Architect 2000 autoanalyzer. As a result, both procedures demonstrated a correlation; nevertheless, they cannot be used interchangeably, and patients’ serum ferritin readings should always be obtained using the same method [23,24]. Previously, two studies [25,26] observed a moderate agreement between the ELISA methods versus the chemiluminescence and radiometric methods (bias: −8.0 to 3.7 μg/L and 8.5 to 12 μg/L, respectively). Between chemiluminescence (bias from 34 to 60 g/L and 12 to 71 g/L), Zhang 2015 [23] and Dipalo 2016 [27] reported moderate to poor agreement, but Molinario 2015 [28] and Gomez 2000 [29] found strong agreement between the agglutination and chemiluminescent methods (bias: −6.0 to −7.9 μg/L; 1.5 to 8 μg/L, respectively).
Human ferritin ELISA kits are designed as simple, convenient, and low-cost ferritin measurements in plasma or serum. They produce results that are consistent with commercial immunoassay systems, including values of less than 30 ng/mL, which is the range of interest for those investigating iron deficiency anemia [13]. Their sensitivity of roughly 0.5 ng/mL is also sufficient to quantify ferritin, even in those with very low levels, and it is equivalent to the Abbot Architect immunoassay (1.0 ng/mL) [6]. Thus, these can be performed with minimal equipment. In contrast, the nature of the antibodies used for ferritin measurement in human serum/plasma is essential to recognize the variations in ferritin results.
The majority of ELISA antibodies are polyclonal and produced against full-length native human liver ferritin.
Ferritin is a 24-subunit protein made up of two types of subunits (H and L), and the ratio of the two subunits varies depending on the ferritin isoform [2]. For example, ferritin from the heart contains mostly the H subunit, whereas ferritin from the liver (and also ferritin in plasma) contains mostly the L subunit. As a result, it has been suggested that variations in how the isoform is measured is one possible explanation for variations in ferritin determination results between different assay methods [22], and that information about the ferritin source against which the antibodies used in the assays were generated is essential for comparing results measured using different methods.

5. Conclusions

The differences in serum ferritin levels likely reflect different ferritin isoforms, antibodies, and calibrators used across assays by different laboratories. However, serum ferritin concentrations measured by Cobas e411 and Cobas Integra 400 methods are strongly correlated with ELISA results, with a higher sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. In conclusion, further investigations with larger samples are required for better accuracy, more precise results, and to determine whether they can be used interchangeably.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.S.B.D. and K.M.S.; methodology, L.S.B.D., E.M.S. and M.A.H.; software, S.M.B.K.; validation, S.M.B.K. and F.M.A.; formal analysis, M.A.H., K.M.S. and S.M.B.K.; investigation, S.M.B.K. and F.M.A.; data curation, M.A.H., A.M.B.T. and S.M.B.K.; writing—original draft preparation, L.S.B.D., K.M.S. and A.S.S.; writing—review and editing, L.S.B.D. and K.M.S.; project administration, L.S.B.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the College of Medicine (CM/REC/07/2020), Hadhramout University, Mukalla, Yemen on 5 February 2020.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from each participant recruited for the study.

Data Availability Statement

The research data from the study may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Hadhramout Modern Hospital in Mukalla, Yemen, for technical support. Special thanks to Abdulmjeed Alqabbas, Adel Almukabeb, Mohammed Alshabibi, Mohammed Batarfi, Saeed Almohammady, and Saleh Bin kolaib for analysis performance. Also, special thanks to Dua’a Bin Ali Al-Haj, Aisha Bakwairy, Aziza Alsolaibi, and Fatima Alhadhrmi for data collection and entry.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Harrison, P.M.; Arosio, P. The ferritins: Molecular properties, iron storage function and cellular regulation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Bioenerg. 1996, 1275, 161–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Wang, W.; Knovich, M.; Coffman, L.; Torti, F.; Torti, S. Serum ferritin: Past, present and future. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Gen. Subj. 2010, 1800, 760–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Grant, F.K.; Suchdev, P.S.; Flores-Ayala, R.; Cole, C.R.; Ramakrishnan, U.; Ruth, L.J.; Martorell, R. Correcting for inflammation changes estimates of iron deficiency among rural Kenyan preschool children. J. Nutr. 2012, 142, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Knowles, J.; Thurnham, D.I.; Phengdy, B.; Houamboun, K.; Philavong, K.; Keomoungkhone, I.; Keovilay, K. Impact of inflammation on the biomarkers of iron status in a cross-sectional survey of Lao women and children. Br. J. Nutr. 2013, 110, 2285–2297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Jonker, F.A.; van Hensbroek, M.B.; Leenstra, T.; Vet, R.J.; Brabin, B.J.; Maseko, N.; Gushu, M.B.; Emana, M.; Kraaijenhagen, R.; Tjalsma, H.; et al. Conventional and novel peripheral blood iron markers compared against bone marrow in Malawian children. J. Clin. Pathol. 2014, 67, 717–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jonker, F.A.; Calis, J.C.; Phiri, K.; Kraaijenhagen, R.J.; Brabin, B.J.; Faragher, B.; Wiegerinck, E.T.; Tjalsma, H.; Swinkels, D.W.; van Boele Hensbroek, M. Low hepcidin levels in severely anaemic Malawian children with high incidence of infectious diseases and bone marrow iron deficiency. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e78964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Nemeth, E.; Ganz, T. Anemia of inflammation. Hematol. Oncol. Clin. 2014, 28, 671–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Hamwi, A.; Endler, G.; Rubi, K.; Wagner, O.; Endler, A.T. Reference values for a heterogeneous ferritin assay and traceability to the 3rd international recombinant standard for ferritin (NIBSC Code 94/572). Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2002, 40, 365–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. National Institute for Biological Standards and Control. WHO International Standard Ferritin, Human, Recombinant NIBSC code: 94/572. Natl. Inst. Biol. Stand. Control 2008, 1–2. Available online: https://nibsc.org/documents/ifu/94-572.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2022).
  10. Thorpe, S.; Walker, D.; Arosio, P.; Heath, A.; Cook, J.; Worwood, M. International collaborative study to evaluate a recombinant L ferritin preparation as an International Standard. Clin. Chem. 1997, 43, 1582–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Garcia-Casal, M.N.; Peña-Rosas, J.P.; Pasricha, S.R. Rethinking ferritin cut-offs for iron deficiency and overload. Lancet Haematol. 2014, 1, e92–e94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Garcia-Casal, M.N.; Pasricha, S.R.; Martinez, R.X.; Lopez-Perez, L.D.; Peña-Rosas, J.P. Serum or plasma ferritin concentration as an index of iron deficiency and overload. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 7, CD011817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. World Health Organization. Serum Ferritin Concentrations for the Assessment of Iron Status and Iron Deficiency in Populations; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  14. Steitz, W.R. Immunoassay labels in chemiluminescence and bioluminescence. Clin. Biochem. 1984, 17, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, P.; Na, N.; Liu, T.; Huang, L.; He, D.; Hua, W.; Ouyang, J. Ultrasensitive detection of ferritin in human serum by Western blotting based on quantum dots-labeled avidin-biotin system. Proteomics 2011, 11, 3510–3517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Yin, J.Y.; Jing, S.U.N.; Huang, J.; Li, W.X.; Huo, J.S. Study on the method of quantitative analysis of serum ferritin and soluble transferrin receptor with protein microarray technology. Biomed. Environ. Sci. 2012, 25, 430–439. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Karlsson, T. Evaluation of a competitive hepcidin ELISA assay in the differential diagnosis of iron deficiency anaemia with concurrent inflammation and anaemia of inflammation in elderly patients. J. Inflamm. 2017, 14, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 8, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Measurement Procedure Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples; Approved Guideline (EP09-A3), CLSI Doc. EP09-A3; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ince, F.D.; Ellidağ, H.Y.; Zeytinli, M.; Avcı, R.; Ozbek, D.; Arı, M.E. Immunoturbidimetric and electrochemiluminescence methods for ferritin measurement. Turk. Clin. Biochem. J. 2016, 14, 51–57. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dupuy, A.M.; Debarge, L.; Poulain, M.; Badiou, S.; Rossi, M.; Cristol, J.P. Determination of serum ferritin using immunoturbidimetry or chemiluminescent detection in comparison with radioimmunoassay a compendium of a methodological juxtaposition. Clin. Lab. 2009, 55, 207–215. [Google Scholar]
  22. Karakochuk, C.D.; Whitfield, K.C.; Rappaport, A.I.; Barr, S.I.; Vercauteren, S.M.; McLean, J.; Hou, K.; Talukder, A.; Houghton, L.A.; Bailey, K.B.; et al. Comparison of four immunoassays to measure serum ferritin concentrations and iron deficiency prevalence among non-pregnant Cambodian women and Congolese children. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2017, 55, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, X.; Lu, Y.; Ma, L.; Peng, Q.; Qin, X.; Li, S. A comparison study between two analyzers for determining serum ferritin. Clin. Lab. 2015, 61, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Milinkovi, N.; Ignjatovi, S.; Sumarac, Z.; Majki-Singh, N. Uncertainty of measurement in laboratory medicine. J. Med. Biochem. 2018, 37, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Erhardt, J.G.; Estes, J.E.; Pfeiffer, C.M.; Biesalski, H.K.; Craft, N.E. Combined measurement of ferritin, soluble transferrin receptor, retinol-binding protein, and C-reactive protein by an inexpensive, sensitive, and simple sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay technique. J. Nutr. 2004, 134, 3127–3132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Rohner, R.; Zeder, C.; Zimmermann, M.B.; Hurrell, R.F. Comparison of manual and automated ELISA methods for serum ferritin analysis. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 2005, 19, 196–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Dipalo, M.; Gnocchi, C.; Aloe, R.; Lippi, G. Comparison of the novel Maglumi ferritin immunoluminometric assay with Beckman Coulter DxI 800 ferritin. LaboratoriumsMedizin 2016, 40, 221–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Molinario, R.; Autilio, C.; Pocino, K.; Daloiso, P.D.; Di Leva, S.; Zuppi, C.; Antenucci, M. Analytical evaluation of a new liquid immunoturbidimetric assay for the determination of ferritin in serum. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2015, 53, E351–E353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gómez, F.; Simó, J.M.; Camps, J.; Clivillé, X.; Bertran, N.; Ferré, N.; Bofill, C.; Joven, J. Evaluation of a particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay for the measurement of ferritin: 76. Application to patients participating in an autologous blood transfusion program. Clin. Biochem. 2000, 33, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 12 00320 g001a 550Diagnostics 12 00320 g001b 550
Figure 1. (a) Association between ELISA and Cobas e411 methods using linear regression analysis; (b) association between ELISA and Cobas Integra 400 methods using linear regression analysis; (c) association between Cobas e411 and Cobas e411 methods using linear regression analysis.
Figure 1. (a) Association between ELISA and Cobas e411 methods using linear regression analysis; (b) association between ELISA and Cobas Integra 400 methods using linear regression analysis; (c) association between Cobas e411 and Cobas e411 methods using linear regression analysis.
Diagnostics 12 00320 g001aDiagnostics 12 00320 g001b
Diagnostics 12 00320 g002a 550Diagnostics 12 00320 g002b 550
Figure 2. (a) Association between ELISA and Cobas e411 methods using Bland–Altman plot analysis; (b) association between ELISA and Cobas Integra 400 methods using Bland–Altman plot analysis; (c) association between Cobas e411 and Cobas e411 methods using Bland–Altman plot analysis.
Figure 2. (a) Association between ELISA and Cobas e411 methods using Bland–Altman plot analysis; (b) association between ELISA and Cobas Integra 400 methods using Bland–Altman plot analysis; (c) association between Cobas e411 and Cobas e411 methods using Bland–Altman plot analysis.
Diagnostics 12 00320 g002aDiagnostics 12 00320 g002b
Table
Table 1. General characteristics of the methods.
Table 1. General characteristics of the methods.
ELISACobas e411Cobas Integra 400
Testing time60 min18 min9 min
Test principleSandwich assaySandwich assayFerroZine assay
CalibrationEndpoint2 pointEndpoint
Sample volume20 μL10 μL8.5 μL
Detection limit0.44 µg/L0.5 µg/L5.0 µg/L
Reference rangeMales: 20–250 µg/L
Females: 10–120 ug//L		Males: 30–400 μg/L
Females: 13–150 μg/L		Males: 59–158 µg/L
Females: 37–145 µg/L
Measuring range0.8–2000 µg/L0.5–2000 µg/L5–1000 µg/L
Linear regressiony = 1.03x − 20.12; R2 = 0.970y = 1.0x − 098; R2 = 0.987y = 1.041x − 0.56; R2 = 0.999
LimitationsIcterus: significant interference
Hemolysis: significant interference
Lipemia: no significant interference		Icterus: no significant interference (bilirubin < 1112 mmol/L).
Hemolysis: No significant interference (Hb < 0.31 mmol/L).
Lipemia: no significant interference.		Icterus: No significant interference.
Hemolysis: No significant interference up to Hb 200 mg/dL.
Lipemia: no significant interference.
Data on file at the Roche Diagnostics Switzerland (kit) for Cobas e411 and Cobas Integra 400, and BioVendor Laboratory Medicine (equipment) for ELISA. ELISA; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Table
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of the participants.
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of the participants.
Participants No. (106)Mean ± SDFrequency (n)Percentage (%)
Age (years):31.57 ± 9.1
Age categories (years):
18–26 3734.9
27–353734.9
≥363230.2
Sex:
Male3331.1
Female7368.9
Iron status:
Iron deficiency 4744.3
Normal4744.3
Iron overload1211.2
Table
Table 3. Comparison of the mean serum ferritin concentrations between the methods.
Table 3. Comparison of the mean serum ferritin concentrations between the methods.
Participants No. (106).Mean ± SETp-Value
ELISA vs. Cobas e41152.55 ± 7.4 vs. 52.58 ± 7.50.0420.967
ELISA vs. Cobas Integra 40052.55 ± 7.4 vs. 56.31 ± 7.84.01<0.001
Cobas Integra 400 vs. Cobas e41156.31 ± 7.8 vs. 52.58 ± 7.54.84<0.001
Data are presented by mean ± standard error (SE). A paired sample t-test was performed to show the mean difference of the methods. ELISA; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Table
Table 4. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of methods for serum ferritin measurement.
Table 4. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of methods for serum ferritin measurement.
Participants No. (106)Sensitivity (%)Specificity (%)(AUC) Accuracy (%)p-Value
Cobas e41192.097.798.9<0.001
Cobas Integra 40090.099.999.6<0.001
ROC indicates the overall sensitivity and specificity of Cobas e411 and Cobas Integra 400 compared to ELISA as the reference method using ROC analysis at a 95% confidence interval. p < 0.05 is considered statistically significant. AUC; area under curve, ELISA; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Table
Table 5. Bias, limits of agreement, and correlation coefficients of methods.
Table 5. Bias, limits of agreement, and correlation coefficients of methods.
Participants (106)Bias
(Mean ± SD)		Limits of Agreement ± 1.96 SDCorrelation Coefficient (r)Convidence Interval (95% CI)p-Value
Lower Upper
ELISA vs. Cobas e411−0.035 ± 8.86−17.32, 17.240.993−1.741.670.238
ELISA vs. Cobas Integra 400−3.75 ± 9.65−22.67, 15.160.994−5.611.89<0.001
Cobas e411 vs. Cobas Integra 400−3.72 ± 7.91−19.22, 11.780.996−5.242.19<0.001
ELISA; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dahman, L.S.B.; Sumaily, K.M.; Sabi, E.M.; Hassan, M.A.; Thalab, A.M.B.; Sayad, A.S.; Kolaib, S.M.B.; Alhadhrmi, F.M. A Comparative Study for Measuring Serum Ferritin Levels with Three Different Laboratory Methods: Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay versus Cobas e411 and Cobas Integra 400 Methods. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 320. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12020320

AMA Style

Dahman LSB, Sumaily KM, Sabi EM, Hassan MA, Thalab AMB, Sayad AS, Kolaib SMB, Alhadhrmi FM. A Comparative Study for Measuring Serum Ferritin Levels with Three Different Laboratory Methods: Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay versus Cobas e411 and Cobas Integra 400 Methods. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(2):320. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12020320

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dahman, Lotfi S. Bin, Khalid M. Sumaily, Essa M. Sabi, Mohammed A. Hassan, Abeer M. Bin Thalab, Asrar S. Sayad, Saleh M. Bin Kolaib, and Fatima M. Alhadhrmi. 2022. "A Comparative Study for Measuring Serum Ferritin Levels with Three Different Laboratory Methods: Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay versus Cobas e411 and Cobas Integra 400 Methods" Diagnostics 12, no. 2: 320. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12020320

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop