Xia Ying, Long Jia-Yi, Shen Meng-Yuan, Dong Na, Guo Hong-Li, Hu Ya-Hui, Lu Xiao-Peng, Ding Xuan-Sheng, Chen Feng, Qiu Jin-Chun
Pharmaceutical Sciences Research Center, Department of Pharmacy, Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
School of Basic Medicine and Clinical Pharmacy, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Front Pharmacol. 2021 Nov 23;12:750744. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.750744. eCollection 2021.
Valproic acid (VPA) is a widely used antiseizure medication and its dosing needs to be tailored individually through therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to avoid or prevent toxicity. Currently, immune-enzymatic assays such as Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique (EMIT), and Liquid Chromatography (LC)-based techniques, particularly coupled to Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS), resulting a potential lack of concordance between laboratories. In this study, plasma VPA concentrations were determined for 711 pediatric patients with epilepsy by a routine EMIT assay and by a validated in-house LC-ESI-MS/MS method on the same group of samples, aimed to address the aforementioned concern. Consistency between two assays was evaluated using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. The calibration curve was linear in the range of 5.00-300 μg/ml for LC-ESI-MS/MS method and 1.00-150 μg/ml for EMIT assay, respectively. The two methods were proven to be accurate with quality control samples. As a result, a significant correlation between two methods was obtained with a regression equation described as ( = 0.9281). Bland-Altman plot showed a mean bias of 14.5 μg/ml (95% confidence interval (CI) (-0.2, 29.2) and a mean increase of 27.8% (95% CI (3.3, 52.4) measured by EMIT assay more than that measured by LC-ESI-MS/MS method. In conclusion, two methods were closely correlated, but EMIT assay overestimate VPA levels in human plasma compared with LC-ESI-MS/MS method. Due to the observed significant discordance between the tested methods, switching from immunoassays to LC-based techniques for TDM of VPA deserves close attention and therapeutic range of 35.0-75.0 μg/ml may be feasible. However, further studies are needed to evaluate the eligibility of this alternative range in the clinical practice. Clinicians should be informed when switching the VPA quantitation methods during the clinical practice.
丙戊酸(VPA)是一种广泛使用的抗癫痫药物,其给药需要通过治疗药物监测(TDM)进行个体化调整,以避免或预防毒性。目前,免疫酶法如酶倍增免疫分析技术(EMIT)以及基于液相色谱(LC)的技术,特别是与电喷雾电离串联质谱联用(LC-ESI-MS/MS),导致不同实验室之间可能缺乏一致性。在本研究中,采用常规EMIT分析法和经过验证的内部LC-ESI-MS/MS方法,对同一组样本中的711例癫痫患儿的血浆VPA浓度进行了测定,旨在解决上述问题。使用线性回归和Bland-Altman分析评估了两种检测方法之间的一致性。LC-ESI-MS/MS方法的校准曲线在5.00 - 300μg/ml范围内呈线性,EMIT分析法的校准曲线在1.00 - 150μg/ml范围内呈线性。两种方法经质量控制样本验证均准确。结果,两种方法之间具有显著相关性,回归方程为(= 0.9281)。Bland-Altman图显示平均偏差为14.5μg/ml(95%置信区间(CI)(-0.2, 29.2)),且EMIT分析法测得的值比LC-ESI-MS/MS方法测得的值平均高27.8%(95% CI(3.3, 52.4))。总之,两种方法密切相关,但与LC-ESI-MS/MS方法相比,EMIT分析法高估了人血浆中VPA的水平。由于在测试方法之间观察到显著不一致,从免疫分析法转向基于LC的技术用于VPA的TDM值得密切关注,35.0 - 75.0μg/ml的治疗范围可能是可行的。然而,需要进一步研究以评估该替代范围在临床实践中的适用性。在临床实践中更换VPA定量方法时应告知临床医生。