Evaluating the performance of the Roche FEN2 fentanyl immunoassay and its clinical implementation: The role of LDT-based mass spectrometry testing

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Marlen Menlyadiev , Raymond T. Suhandynata , Kyle Lund , Michael J. Kelner , Robert L. Fitzgerald
{"title":"Evaluating the performance of the Roche FEN2 fentanyl immunoassay and its clinical implementation: The role of LDT-based mass spectrometry testing","authors":"Marlen Menlyadiev ,&nbsp;Raymond T. Suhandynata ,&nbsp;Kyle Lund ,&nbsp;Michael J. Kelner ,&nbsp;Robert L. Fitzgerald","doi":"10.1016/j.jmsacl.2023.02.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>While laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) are widely employed to support the development of FDA-cleared drug immunoassays, their significance in the clinical implementation and evaluation of such assays is often overlooked. This paper reports on the important role of LC-MS/MS LDTs in demonstrating improved performance of the Roche FEN2 fentanyl immunoassay compared with the Thermo DRI fentanyl immunoassay.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The FEN2 assay was implemented according to the manufacturer's instructions and its performance was compared to the existing DRI assay using LC-MS/MS as a reference. Clinical sensitivity and specificity were determined using 250 consecutive random patient specimens. Spiking experiments were conducted to determine cross-reactivity with 31 fentanyl analogs. Select DRI false-positive samples were analyzed by the FEN2 assay via time-of-flight mass spectrometry method (LC-QTOF).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The FEN2 assay showed improved clinical sensitivity compared to the DRI (98% vs 61%) in 250 consecutive patient samples due to its ability to detect norfentanyl. It also showed better clinical specificity by correctly classifying select DRI false-positive results. Upon implementation in clinical practice, the FEN2 resulted in a higher screening positivity rate than the DRI (17.3% vs 13.3%) and a greater LC-MS/MS confirmation rate of immunoassay-positive samples (96.8% vs 88.8%, respectively).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The use of LC-MS/MS LDTs demonstrated that the FEN2 assay has greater clinical sensitivity and is less prone to false-positives than the DRI assay. These findings support the use of FEN2 in routine clinical practice and emphasize the role of mass spectrometry-based LDTs in clinical toxicology testing.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":52406,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Advances in the Clinical Lab","volume":"28 ","pages":"Pages 105-113"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10070886/pdf/main.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Advances in the Clinical Lab","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667145X23000160","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction

While laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) are widely employed to support the development of FDA-cleared drug immunoassays, their significance in the clinical implementation and evaluation of such assays is often overlooked. This paper reports on the important role of LC-MS/MS LDTs in demonstrating improved performance of the Roche FEN2 fentanyl immunoassay compared with the Thermo DRI fentanyl immunoassay.

Methods

The FEN2 assay was implemented according to the manufacturer's instructions and its performance was compared to the existing DRI assay using LC-MS/MS as a reference. Clinical sensitivity and specificity were determined using 250 consecutive random patient specimens. Spiking experiments were conducted to determine cross-reactivity with 31 fentanyl analogs. Select DRI false-positive samples were analyzed by the FEN2 assay via time-of-flight mass spectrometry method (LC-QTOF).

Results

The FEN2 assay showed improved clinical sensitivity compared to the DRI (98% vs 61%) in 250 consecutive patient samples due to its ability to detect norfentanyl. It also showed better clinical specificity by correctly classifying select DRI false-positive results. Upon implementation in clinical practice, the FEN2 resulted in a higher screening positivity rate than the DRI (17.3% vs 13.3%) and a greater LC-MS/MS confirmation rate of immunoassay-positive samples (96.8% vs 88.8%, respectively).

Conclusion

The use of LC-MS/MS LDTs demonstrated that the FEN2 assay has greater clinical sensitivity and is less prone to false-positives than the DRI assay. These findings support the use of FEN2 in routine clinical practice and emphasize the role of mass spectrometry-based LDTs in clinical toxicology testing.

Roche FEN2芬太尼免疫测定的性能评估及其临床应用:基于LDT的质谱检测的作用
引言虽然使用液相色谱-串联质谱法(LC-MS/MS)的实验室开发测试(LDT)被广泛用于支持FDA批准的药物免疫测定的开发,但它们在此类测定的临床实施和评估中的重要性往往被忽视。本文报道了LC-MS/MS LDTs在证明Roche FEN2芬太尼免疫测定与Thermo DRI芬太尼免疫测定相比性能提高方面的重要作用。方法按照制造商的说明书进行FEN2测定,并使用LC-MS/MS作为参考,将其性能与现有的DRI测定进行比较。使用250个连续的随机患者样本测定临床敏感性和特异性。进行加标实验以确定与31种芬太尼类似物的交叉反应性。通过飞行时间质谱法(LC-QTOF)用FEN2法分析选定的DRI假阳性样本。结果在250个连续的患者样本中,与DRI(98%对61%)相比,FEN2法由于能够检测去甲芬太尼,其临床灵敏度有所提高。通过正确分类DRI假阳性结果,它也显示出更好的临床特异性。在临床实践中实施后,FEN2的筛查阳性率高于DRI(17.3%vs 13.3%),免疫测定阳性样本的LC-MS/MS确认率更高(分别为96.8%vs 88.8%)。这些发现支持在常规临床实践中使用FEN2,并强调了基于质谱的LDT在临床毒理学测试中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Advances in the Clinical Lab
Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Advances in the Clinical Lab Health Professions-Medical Laboratory Technology
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
41
审稿时长
81 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信