Cargando…

Accuracy evaluation of automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for everolimus and sirolimus compared to liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the analytical performance of a newly developed electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for everolimus and sirolimus compared to that of liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS). METHODS: According to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines, the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Eun Jin, Kim, Hyun‐Ki, Ahn, Sunyoung, Lee, Woochang, Kim, Hyun Soo, Chun, Sail, Min, Won‐Ki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6757180/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31197901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.22941
_version_ 1783453526939140096
author Lee, Eun Jin
Kim, Hyun‐Ki
Ahn, Sunyoung
Lee, Woochang
Kim, Hyun Soo
Chun, Sail
Min, Won‐Ki
author_facet Lee, Eun Jin
Kim, Hyun‐Ki
Ahn, Sunyoung
Lee, Woochang
Kim, Hyun Soo
Chun, Sail
Min, Won‐Ki
author_sort Lee, Eun Jin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We evaluated the analytical performance of a newly developed electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for everolimus and sirolimus compared to that of liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS). METHODS: According to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines, the analytical performance including precision, recovery, linearity, and carryover was evaluated. For correlation evaluation, the results of Elecsys(®) analysis of everolimus and sirolimus were compared with those of LC‐MS/MS using 120 samples from patients treated with everolimus or sirolimus. RESULTS: The within‐run and total imprecision values were as follows: 2.3%‐4.5% and 4.5%‐6.4% for the everolimus assay; 3.3%‐4.8% and 4.7%‐8.1% for the sirolimus assay, respectively. The measured concentration was linear over the range of 0.718‐27.585 ng/mL for everolimus analysis and 0.789‐26.880 ng/mL for sirolimus analysis (all R (2) > 0.99). Recovery was 93.5%‐105.5% for the everolimus assay and 99.2%‐109.1% for the sirolimus assay (except lowest levels). Carryover was −1.09% for the everolimus assay and −0.12% for the sirolimus assay. The results of the two chemiluminescence immunoassays showed acceptable correlations with those of LC‐MS/MS (R = 0.9585 and R = 0.9799, respectively). The two immunoassays showed slightly proportional biases compared to LC‐MS/MS. CONCLUSION: Elecsys(®) Everolimus and Sirolimus assays showed acceptable analytical performance in precision, linearity, and correlation compared to LC‐MS/MS These methods can be adopted in the clinical laboratory for rapid therapeutic drug monitoring of patients who require treatment with immunosuppressants.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6757180
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67571802019-11-12 Accuracy evaluation of automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for everolimus and sirolimus compared to liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry Lee, Eun Jin Kim, Hyun‐Ki Ahn, Sunyoung Lee, Woochang Kim, Hyun Soo Chun, Sail Min, Won‐Ki J Clin Lab Anal Research Articles BACKGROUND: We evaluated the analytical performance of a newly developed electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for everolimus and sirolimus compared to that of liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS). METHODS: According to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines, the analytical performance including precision, recovery, linearity, and carryover was evaluated. For correlation evaluation, the results of Elecsys(®) analysis of everolimus and sirolimus were compared with those of LC‐MS/MS using 120 samples from patients treated with everolimus or sirolimus. RESULTS: The within‐run and total imprecision values were as follows: 2.3%‐4.5% and 4.5%‐6.4% for the everolimus assay; 3.3%‐4.8% and 4.7%‐8.1% for the sirolimus assay, respectively. The measured concentration was linear over the range of 0.718‐27.585 ng/mL for everolimus analysis and 0.789‐26.880 ng/mL for sirolimus analysis (all R (2) > 0.99). Recovery was 93.5%‐105.5% for the everolimus assay and 99.2%‐109.1% for the sirolimus assay (except lowest levels). Carryover was −1.09% for the everolimus assay and −0.12% for the sirolimus assay. The results of the two chemiluminescence immunoassays showed acceptable correlations with those of LC‐MS/MS (R = 0.9585 and R = 0.9799, respectively). The two immunoassays showed slightly proportional biases compared to LC‐MS/MS. CONCLUSION: Elecsys(®) Everolimus and Sirolimus assays showed acceptable analytical performance in precision, linearity, and correlation compared to LC‐MS/MS These methods can be adopted in the clinical laboratory for rapid therapeutic drug monitoring of patients who require treatment with immunosuppressants. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6757180/ /pubmed/31197901 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.22941 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Lee, Eun Jin
Kim, Hyun‐Ki
Ahn, Sunyoung
Lee, Woochang
Kim, Hyun Soo
Chun, Sail
Min, Won‐Ki
Accuracy evaluation of automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for everolimus and sirolimus compared to liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry
title Accuracy evaluation of automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for everolimus and sirolimus compared to liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry
title_full Accuracy evaluation of automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for everolimus and sirolimus compared to liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry
title_fullStr Accuracy evaluation of automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for everolimus and sirolimus compared to liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy evaluation of automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for everolimus and sirolimus compared to liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry
title_short Accuracy evaluation of automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for everolimus and sirolimus compared to liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry
title_sort accuracy evaluation of automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for everolimus and sirolimus compared to liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6757180/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31197901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.22941
work_keys_str_mv AT leeeunjin accuracyevaluationofautomatedelectrochemiluminescenceimmunoassayforeverolimusandsirolimuscomparedtoliquidchromatographytandemmassspectrometry
AT kimhyunki accuracyevaluationofautomatedelectrochemiluminescenceimmunoassayforeverolimusandsirolimuscomparedtoliquidchromatographytandemmassspectrometry
AT ahnsunyoung accuracyevaluationofautomatedelectrochemiluminescenceimmunoassayforeverolimusandsirolimuscomparedtoliquidchromatographytandemmassspectrometry
AT leewoochang accuracyevaluationofautomatedelectrochemiluminescenceimmunoassayforeverolimusandsirolimuscomparedtoliquidchromatographytandemmassspectrometry
AT kimhyunsoo accuracyevaluationofautomatedelectrochemiluminescenceimmunoassayforeverolimusandsirolimuscomparedtoliquidchromatographytandemmassspectrometry
AT chunsail accuracyevaluationofautomatedelectrochemiluminescenceimmunoassayforeverolimusandsirolimuscomparedtoliquidchromatographytandemmassspectrometry
AT minwonki accuracyevaluationofautomatedelectrochemiluminescenceimmunoassayforeverolimusandsirolimuscomparedtoliquidchromatographytandemmassspectrometry