Aumente Maria D, López-Santamaría Julia, Donoso-Rengifo María Concepción, Reyes-Torres Inmaculada, Montejano Hervás Pablo
Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía, Unidad de farmacocinética, Servicio de Farmacia, Córdoba, Spain.
Ther Drug Monit. 2017 Oct;39(5):492-498. doi: 10.1097/FTD.0000000000000434.
Fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) has probably been the most widely used technique for the determination of methotrexate (MTX) concentrations in clinical laboratories. After its replacement by a novel architect chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA), it is essential to verify that there are no differences between the methods that can induce an error in leucovorin rescue with dire consequences for the patient. The objective of our study was to compare plasma/serum MTX measurements between CMIA and FPIA (reference method in this study) in the work conditions of a clinical pharmacokinetics unit to determine whether any difference would affect clinical decisions on the management of this drug.
FPIA on TDx/FLx and CMIA on Architect ci8200 were simultaneously used to evaluate 127 clinical samples. Within-run (20 repetitions on same day) and between-run (20 repetitions on different days) imprecision was evaluated using 6 control samples provided by the manufacturer and diluting 2 of them by 50% for 0.03 and 0.22 μmol/L, respectively. The Passing-Bablok regression method, Bland-Altman plot, and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were used in the statistical analysis.
Within-run imprecision was <5% (3.6%-4.39%) and between-run imprecision <11% (2.42%-10.65%). Between-assay correlation for the studied concentration range (0.05-250 μmol/L) was CMIA = -0.026 + 1.033 FPIA (n = 127), r = 0.9963, and CCC = 0.9946. For samples <1.5 μmol/L (nondiluted) included in the assay calibration curve, the correlation was CMIA = -0.009 + 0.955 FPIA (n = 54), r = 0.9819, and CCC = 0.9807. No significant difference was observed between the measurements by the 2 assays, given that the 95% confidence interval of the ordinate at the origin included "0" (-0.020 to 0.0007), and the 95% confidence interval of the slope included 1 (0.923-1.020). The interchangeability of these assays was confirmed by Bland-Altman plot results, which showed a mean difference insignificant at concentrations <10 μmol/L.
The correlation between methods was excellent, and Passing-Bablok regression analysis detected no virtually difference in their results. Utilization of the CMIA-Architect assay to measure MTX concentrations would therefore not affect clinical decisions on MTX management, supporting its employment in routine MTX monitoring.
荧光偏振免疫分析法(FPIA)可能是临床实验室中测定甲氨蝶呤(MTX)浓度最广泛使用的技术。在其被新型的化学发光微粒子免疫分析法(CMIA)取代后,必须验证这两种方法之间不存在可能导致亚叶酸解救出现误差并给患者带来严重后果的差异。我们研究的目的是在临床药代动力学部门的工作条件下比较CMIA和FPIA(本研究中的参考方法)对血浆/血清MTX的检测结果,以确定是否存在任何差异会影响该药物管理的临床决策。
同时使用TDx/FLx上的FPIA和Architect ci8200上的CMIA来评估127份临床样本。使用制造商提供的6份对照样本,并将其中2份分别稀释50%至0.03和0.22 μmol/L,评估批内(同一天20次重复)和批间(不同天20次重复)不精密度。统计分析采用Passing-Bablok回归法、Bland-Altman图和一致性相关系数(CCC)。
批内不精密度<5%(3.6%-4.39%),批间不精密度<11%(2.42%-10.65%)。在所研究的浓度范围(0.05-250 μmol/L)内,两种检测方法的分析间相关性为CMIA = -0.026 + 1.033 FPIA(n = 127),r = 0.9963,CCC = 0.9946。对于分析校准曲线中包含的<1.5 μmol/L(未稀释)的样本,相关性为CMIA = -0.009 + 0.955 FPIA(n = 54),r = 0.9819,CCC = 0.9807。两种检测方法的测量结果之间未观察到显著差异,因为原点纵坐标的95%置信区间包含“0”(-0.020至0.0007),斜率的95%置信区间包含1(0.923-1.020)。Bland-Altman图结果证实了这些检测方法的互换性,该结果显示在浓度<10 μmol/L时平均差异不显著。
两种方法之间的相关性极佳,Passing-Bablok回归分析在其结果中几乎未检测到差异。因此,使用CMIA-Architect检测法测量MTX浓度不会影响MTX管理的临床决策,支持其在MTX常规监测中的应用。