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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |