##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 156 No. 2 (2026)

Bilirubin interference in creatinine assays: cross-sectional analysis of the impact on the MELD score and CKD staging using Jaffe vs enzymatic methods

Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2026;156:4707
Published
25.02.2026

Summary

BACKGROUND: Reliable and accurate measurement of creatinine is essential for the estimation of kidney function (eGFR) and for survival prediction with the model of the end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. Bilirubin interference is considered an important interference of Jaffe creatinine assays; the enzymatic assay is also affected but less so. This study aimed to evaluate the comparability of the Jaffe and enzymatic creatinine methods and the impact of their discrepancy on clinical decision-making, particularly in the context of bilirubin interference.

METHODS: We compared creatinine measurements from the Roche Jaffe Gen.2 (CREJ2) and Roche Creatinine Plus ver.2 (CREP2) assays using routine heparin plasma samples (n = 15,618). To estimate the clinical impact of bilirubin interference on these two assays, we evaluated our results in the context of eGFR-based staging of severity of kidney disease and the MELD score.

RESULTS: The Roche Jaffe and enzymatic methods agree well for non-icteric samples with a mean relative bias of 3.97% but not in icteric samples. In samples with 5–20 mg/dl and 20–53 mg/dl bilirubin, the biases amounted to 10.9% and 43.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: The Jaffe method’s susceptibility to bilirubin interference, in comparison to the enzymatic assay, can result in higher MELD scores and can lead to an underestimation of kidney function.

References

  1. 1. Jager KJ, Kovesdy C, Langham R, Rosenberg M, Jha V, Zoccali C. A single number for advocacy and communication-worldwide more than 850 million individuals have kidney diseases. Kidney Int. 2019 Nov;96(5):1048–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kint.2019.07.012
  2. 2. Fidalgo P, Bagshaw SM. Chronic kidney disease in the intensive care unit. Management of Chronic Kidney Disease. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2014. pp. 417–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54637-2_32
  3. 3. Stevens LA, Coresh J, Greene T, Levey AS. Assessing kidney function—measured and estimated glomerular filtration rate. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun;354(23):2473–83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra054415
  4. 4. Stevens PE, Ahmed SB, Carrero JJ, Foster B, Francis A, Hall RK, et al. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO 2024 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Int. 2024 Apr;105(4 4S):S117–314. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kint.2023.10.018
  5. 5. Kamath PS, Wiesner RH, Malinchoc M, Kremers W, Therneau TM, Kosberg CL, et al. A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. Hepatology. 2001 Feb;33(2):464–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1053/jhep.2001.22172
  6. 6. Thomas L. Labor und Diagnose [Internet]. Prof. Lothar Thomas. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 29]. Available from: https://www.labor-und-diagnose.de/
  7. 7. Jaffe M. Ueber den Niederschlag, welchen Pikrinsäure in normalem Harn erzeugt und über eine neue Reaction des Kreatinins. Biol Chem. 1886;10(5):391–400. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/bchm1.1886.10.5.391
  8. 8. Miller BF, Dubos R. Determination by a specific, enzymatic method of the creatinine content of blood and urine from normal and nephritic individuals. J Biol Chem. 1937 Nov;121(2):457–64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)74278-6
  9. 9. 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 Feb;58(2):391–401. doi: https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2011.172288
  10. 10. Cobbaert CM, Baadenhuijsen H, Weykamp CW. Prime time for enzymatic creatinine methods in pediatrics. Clin Chem. 2009 Mar;55(3):549–58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2008.116863
  11. 11. Owen LJ, Keevil BG. Does bilirubin cause interference in Roche creatinine methods? Clin Chem. 2007 Feb;53(2):370–1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2006.075846
  12. 12. Nah H, Lee SG, Lee KS, Won JH, Kim HO, Kim JH. Evaluation of bilirubin interference and accuracy of six creatinine assays compared with isotope dilution-liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. Clin Biochem. 2016 Feb;49(3):274–81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.10.015
  13. 13. Cheung T, Tawfik A, Kampfrath T. Effects of Bilirubin Interference in the Roche Kinetic Alkaline Picrate Creatinine Assay. J Appl Lab Med. 2018 Jul;3(1):152–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1373/jalm.2017.025528
  14. 14. Cholongitas E, Marelli L, Kerry A, Senzolo M, Goodier DW, Nair D, et al. Different methods of creatinine measurement significantly affect MELD scores. Liver Transpl. 2007 Apr;13(4):523–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.20994
  15. 15. Kaiser T, Kinny-Köster B, Bartels M, Parthaune T, Schmidt M, Thiery J. Impact of different creatinine measurement methods on liver transplant allocation. PLoS One. 2014 Feb;9(2):e90015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090015
  16. 16. Peake M, Whiting M. Measurement of serum creatinine—current status and future goals. Clin Biochem Rev. 2006 Nov;27(4):173–84.
  17. 17. Charifa A, Bunch DR, El-Khoury JM. Practical Approach to Eliminate Bilirubin Interference in Icteric Samples for Creatinine Measurement. J Appl Lab Med. 2019 Nov;4(3):477–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1373/jalm.2019.030247
  18. 18. Boot S, LaRoche N, Legg EF. Elimination of bilirubin interference in creatinine assays by routine techniques: comparisons with a high performance liquid chromatography method. Ann Clin Biochem. 1994 May;31(Pt 3):262–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/000456329403100308
  19. 19. Villa P, Jiménez M, Soriano MC, Manzanares J, Casasnovas P. Serum cystatin C concentration as a marker of acute renal dysfunction in critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2005 Apr;9(2):R139–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/cc3044
  20. 20. Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, Zhang YL, Castro AF 3rd, Feldman HI, et al.; CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration). A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2009 May;150(9):604–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-150-9-200905050-00006
  21. 21. Wickham H, Chang W, Henry L, Pedersen TL, Takahashi K, Wilke C, et al. Ggplot2: Create elegant data visualisations using the grammar of graphics [Internet]. CRAN: Contributed Packages. The R Foundation; 2007. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=ggplot2
  22. 22. Shrivastav V. lin.eval: Perform Polynomial Evaluation of Linearity [Internet]. CRAN: Contributed Packages. The R Foundation; 2019. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=lin.eval
  23. 23. Potapov S, Model F, Schuetzenmeister A, Manuilova E, Dufey F, Raymaekers J. mcr: Method Comparison Regression [Internet]. CRAN: Contributed Packages. The R Foundation; 2012. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=mcr
  24. 24. MQ – Bericht des Ringversuchs 2024 -1 [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 3]. Available from: https://www.mqzh.ch/cm/images/mq20241/pdf/mq_2024_1_rvb_d.pdf
  25. 25. MQ – Bericht des Ringversuchs 2025 - 1 [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 3]. Available from: https://www.mqzh.ch/cm/images/mq20251/pdf/mq_2025_1_rvb_d.pdf
  26. 26. Spencer KS, Duvall LE. Investigating the effect of icterus interference on a creatinine Roche enzymatic methodology. Ann Clin Biochem. 2025 Nov;62(6):510–3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/00045632251337619
  27. 27. Randers E, Kristensen JH, Erlandsen EJ, Danielsen H. Serum cystatin C as a marker of the renal function. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1998 Nov;58(7):585–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00365519850186210
  28. 28. Inker LA, Schmid CH, Tighiouart H, Eckfeldt JH, Feldman HI, Greene T, et al.; CKD-EPI Investigators. Estimating glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine and cystatin C. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jul;367(1):20–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1114248
  29. 29. Finkenstedt A, Dorn L, Edlinger M, Prokop W, Risch L, Griesmacher A, et al. Cystatin C is a strong predictor of survival in patients with cirrhosis: is a cystatin C-based MELD better? Liver Int. 2012 Sep;32(8):1211–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-3231.2012.02766.x
  30. 30. Soleimani N, Dehghani S, Anbardar MH, Mohammadzadeh S, Amirinezhad Fard E, Zare Sheibani A, et al. Comparing Jaffe and Enzymatic Methods for Creatinine Measurement at Various Icterus Levels and Their Impacts on Liver Transplant Allocation. Int J Anal Chem. 2023 Oct;2023:9804533. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9804533
  31. 31. Syme NR, Stevens K, Stirling C, McMillan DC, Talwar D. Clinical and Analytical Impact of Moving from Jaffe to Enzymatic Serum Creatinine Methodology. J Appl Lab Med. 2020 Jul;5(4):631–42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfaa053