Miyagi Chika, Tanaka Ryota, Shiraiwa Ken, Tatsuta Ryosuke, Itoh Hiroki
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Oita University Hospital, Yufu, Oita, Japan .
Ther Drug Monit. 2024 Dec 1;46(6):717-724. doi: 10.1097/FTD.0000000000001246. Epub 2024 Jul 31.
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).
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.
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).
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.
亲和铬介导免疫分析(ACMIA)无需预处理,校准范围广,分析性能良好。迄今为止,尚无研究比较ACMIA和乳胶凝集比浊免疫分析(LTIA)。本研究的目的是评估ACMIA、LTIA与先前开发的超高效液相色谱串联质谱法(UHPLC-MS/MS)之间的互换性。
从25例接受依维莫司常规治疗药物监测的患者中采集了111份全血样本。使用稳健的Passing-Bablok回归分析和Bland-Altman图评估这三种方法之间的互换性。
所有样本均可通过UHPLC-MS/MS进行定量,而分别有56份和1份样本低于LTIA和ACMIA的定量下限。在稳健的Passing-Bablok回归图中,ACMIA与UHPLC-MS/MS、LTIA与UHPLC-MS/MS以及ACMIA与LTIA之间回归方程的斜率分别为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),显著的比例偏倚表明这三种方法之间均无互换性。Bland-Altman图也显示ACMIA与UHPLC-MS/MS(P = 0.012)、LTIA与UHPLC-MS/MS(P < 0.001)以及ACMIA与LTIA(P < 0.001)之间存在统计学上显著的比例偏倚。
在这三种方法之间观察到统计学上显著的比例偏倚。在更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浓度的测量结果。