血液中依维莫司定量的三种不同方法之间缺乏互换性:ACMIA、LTIA 和 UHPLC-MS/MS。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Chika Miyagi, Ryota Tanaka, Ken Shiraiwa, Ryosuke Tatsuta, Hiroki Itoh
{"title":"血液中依维莫司定量的三种不同方法之间缺乏互换性:ACMIA、LTIA 和 UHPLC-MS/MS。","authors":"Chika Miyagi, Ryota Tanaka, Ken Shiraiwa, Ryosuke Tatsuta, Hiroki Itoh","doi":"10.1097/FTD.0000000000001246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Affinity chrome-mediated immunoassays (ACMIA) do not require pretreatment and have a wide calibration range and good analytical performance. To date, no studies have compared ACMIA and latex agglutination turbidimetry immunoassays (LTIA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the interchangeability of ACMIA, LTIA, and the previously developed ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 111 whole blood samples were collected from 25 patients undergoing routine everolimus therapeutic drug monitoring. The interchangeability between the 3 methods was assessed using robust Passing-Bablok regression analysis and Bland-Altman plots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All samples were quantifiable by UHPLC-MS/MS, whereas 56 and 1 samples were below the lower limits of quantification by LTIA and ACMIA, respectively. In the robust Passing-Bablok regression plots, the slopes of the regression equations between ACMIA and UHPLC-MS/MS, LTIA and UHPLC-MS/MS, and ACMIA and LTIA were 1.23 (95% [confidence interval] CI, 1.13-1.33), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.57-0.77), and 1.71 (95% CI, 1.43-2.33), respectively, with significant proportional biases indicating no interchangeability among all 3 methods. Bland-Altman plots also revealed statistically significant proportional biases between ACMIA and UHPLC-MS/MS (P = 0.012), LTIA and UHPLC-MS/MS (P < 0.001), and ACMIA and LTIA (P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Statistically significant proportional biases were observed among the 3 methods. Blood everolimus concentration measurements should be interpreted with caution when switching the quantification methods for therapeutic drug monitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":23052,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Drug Monitoring","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lack of Interchangeability Between 3 Different Methods for Quantification of Everolimus in Blood: ACMIA, LTIA, and UHPLC-MS/MS.\",\"authors\":\"Chika Miyagi, Ryota Tanaka, Ken Shiraiwa, Ryosuke Tatsuta, Hiroki Itoh\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/FTD.0000000000001246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Affinity chrome-mediated immunoassays (ACMIA) do not require pretreatment and have a wide calibration range and good analytical performance. To date, no studies have compared ACMIA and latex agglutination turbidimetry immunoassays (LTIA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the interchangeability of ACMIA, LTIA, and the previously developed ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 111 whole blood samples were collected from 25 patients undergoing routine everolimus therapeutic drug monitoring. The interchangeability between the 3 methods was assessed using robust Passing-Bablok regression analysis and Bland-Altman plots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All samples were quantifiable by UHPLC-MS/MS, whereas 56 and 1 samples were below the lower limits of quantification by LTIA and ACMIA, respectively. In the robust Passing-Bablok regression plots, the slopes of the regression equations between ACMIA and UHPLC-MS/MS, LTIA and UHPLC-MS/MS, and ACMIA and LTIA were 1.23 (95% [confidence interval] CI, 1.13-1.33), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.57-0.77), and 1.71 (95% CI, 1.43-2.33), respectively, with significant proportional biases indicating no interchangeability among all 3 methods. Bland-Altman plots also revealed statistically significant proportional biases between ACMIA and UHPLC-MS/MS (P = 0.012), LTIA and UHPLC-MS/MS (P < 0.001), and ACMIA and LTIA (P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Statistically significant proportional biases were observed among the 3 methods. Blood everolimus concentration measurements should be interpreted with caution when switching the quantification methods for therapeutic drug monitoring.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Drug Monitoring\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Drug Monitoring\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/FTD.0000000000001246\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Drug Monitoring","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/FTD.0000000000001246","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: 0

摘要

背景:亲和色介导免疫分析法(ACMIA)无需预处理,校准范围广,分析性能好。迄今为止,还没有研究比较过 ACMIA 和乳胶凝集浊度法免疫测定 (LTIA)。本研究旨在评估 ACMIA、LTIA 和之前开发的超高效液相色谱-串联质谱(UHPLC-MS/MS)的互换性:方法:对 25 名接受依维莫司治疗药物常规监测的患者采集了 111 份全血样本。采用稳健的 Passing-Bablok 回归分析和 Bland-Altman 图评估了 3 种方法之间的互换性:结果:所有样品均可通过超高效液相色谱-质谱/质谱法定量,而分别有 56 个和 1 个样品低于 LTIA 和 ACMIA 定量下限。在稳健的 Passing-Bablok 回归图中,ACMIA 与 UHPLC-MS/MS、LTIA 与 UHPLC-MS/MS、ACMIA 与 LTIA 之间的回归方程斜率分别为 1.23(95% [置信区间] CI,1.13-1.33)、0.67(95% CI,0.57-0.77)和 1.71(95% CI,1.43-2.33),存在显著的比例偏差,表明这三种方法之间没有互换性。Bland-Altman 图还显示 ACMIA 和 UHPLC-MS/MS (P = 0.012)、LTIA 和 UHPLC-MS/MS (P < 0.001)以及 ACMIA 和 LTIA (P < 0.001)之间存在统计学意义上的显著比例偏差:结论:3 种方法在统计学上存在明显的比例偏差。结论:3 种方法之间存在明显的统计学比例偏差。在转换治疗药物监测的定量方法时,应谨慎解释血液中依维莫司的浓度测量结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lack of Interchangeability Between 3 Different Methods for Quantification of Everolimus in Blood: ACMIA, LTIA, and UHPLC-MS/MS.

Background: Affinity chrome-mediated immunoassays (ACMIA) do not require pretreatment and have a wide calibration range and good analytical performance. To date, no studies have compared ACMIA and latex agglutination turbidimetry immunoassays (LTIA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the interchangeability of ACMIA, LTIA, and the previously developed ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS).

Methods: A total of 111 whole blood samples were collected from 25 patients undergoing routine everolimus therapeutic drug monitoring. The interchangeability between the 3 methods was assessed using robust Passing-Bablok regression analysis and Bland-Altman plots.

Results: All samples were quantifiable by UHPLC-MS/MS, whereas 56 and 1 samples were below the lower limits of quantification by LTIA and ACMIA, respectively. In the robust Passing-Bablok regression plots, the slopes of the regression equations between ACMIA and UHPLC-MS/MS, LTIA and UHPLC-MS/MS, and ACMIA and LTIA were 1.23 (95% [confidence interval] CI, 1.13-1.33), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.57-0.77), and 1.71 (95% CI, 1.43-2.33), respectively, with significant proportional biases indicating no interchangeability among all 3 methods. Bland-Altman plots also revealed statistically significant proportional biases between ACMIA and UHPLC-MS/MS (P = 0.012), LTIA and UHPLC-MS/MS (P < 0.001), and ACMIA and LTIA (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Statistically significant proportional biases were observed among the 3 methods. Blood everolimus concentration measurements should be interpreted with caution when switching the quantification methods for therapeutic drug monitoring.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
213
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Drug Monitoring is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal directed to an audience of pharmacologists, clinical chemists, laboratorians, pharmacists, drug researchers and toxicologists. It fosters the exchange of knowledge among the various disciplines–clinical pharmacology, pathology, toxicology, analytical chemistry–that share a common interest in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. The journal presents studies detailing the various factors that affect the rate and extent drugs are absorbed, metabolized, and excreted. Regular features include review articles on specific classes of drugs, original articles, case reports, technical notes, and continuing education articles.
×
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