A microparticle enzyme immunoassay to measure sirolimus

Long-term evaluation of analytical methods used in sirolimus therapeutic drug monitoring

Results of therapeutic monitoring of sirolimus blood concentrations are assay and laboratory dependent. This study compared performance over time of the IMx microparticle enzyme immunoassay (MEIA), Architect chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA), and liquid chromatography with mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS) as part of a proficiency testing scheme. Pooled samples from sirolimus-treated patients and whole-blood samples spiked with known quantities of sirolimus were assayed monthly between 2004 and 2012. When results of pooled patient samples were compared with LC/MS/MS, the MEIA assay showed an overall mean percent bias of -2.3% ± 11.2% that, although initially positive, became increasingly negative from 2007 through 2009. The CMIA, which replaced the MEIA assay, had a mean percent bias of 21.9% ± 12.3%, remaining stable from 2007 through 2012. Similarly, for spiked samples, the MEIA showed an increasingly negative bias over time vs. LC/MS/MS, whereas CMIA maintained a stable positive bias. Based on comparison of immunoassay measurements on individual patient samples, CMIA values were more than 25% higher than MEIA values. These results highlight the importance of continued proficiency testing and regular monitoring of sirolimus assay performance. Clinicians must be aware of the methodology used and adjust target levels accordingly to avoid potential effects on efficacy and toxicity.

Immunosuppressant therapeutic drug monitoring by LC-MS/MS: workflow optimization through automated processing of whole blood samples

OBJECTIVES

Although, due to its high specificity and sensitivity, LC-MS/MS is an efficient technique for the routine determination of immunosuppressants in whole blood, it involves time-consuming manual sample preparation. The aim of the present study was therefore to develop an automated sample-preparation protocol for the quantification of sirolimus, everolimus and tacrolimus by LC-MS/MS using a liquid handling platform.

METHODS

Six-level commercially available blood calibrators were used for assay development, while four quality control materials and three blood samples from patients under immunosuppressant treatment were employed for the evaluation of imprecision. Barcode reading, sample re-suspension, transfer of whole blood samples into 96-well plates, addition of internal standard solution, mixing, and protein precipitation were performed with a liquid handling platform. After plate filtration, the deproteinised supernatants were submitted for SPE on-line. The only manual steps in the entire process were de-capping of the tubes, and transfer of the well plates to the HPLC autosampler.

RESULTS

Calibration curves were linear throughout the selected ranges. The imprecision and accuracy data for all analytes were highly satisfactory. The agreement between the results obtained with manual and those obtained with automated sample preparation was optimal (n=390, r=0.96). In daily routine (100 patient samples) the typical overall total turnaround time was less than 6h.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that the proposed analytical system is suitable for routine analysis, since it is straightforward and precise. Furthermore, it incurs less manual workload and less risk of error in the quantification of whole blood immunosuppressant concentrations than conventional methods.

An accurate quantitative LC/ESI-MS/MS method for sirolimus in human whole blood

Sirolimus is a widely used immunosuppressant that requires therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). We optimized a preanalytical procedure that allows for the accurate quantiation of sirolimus in whole blood by LC/ESI-MS/MS with minimal matrix effects. Sirolimus is highly lipophilic, and solvents containing greater than 50% methanol were required to maintain sirolimus recovery. The final pretreatment procedure developed consists of a zinc sulfate protein precipitation, an extraction using octadecyl silyl-silica gel for eliminating water-soluble and hydrophilic compounds, and HybridSPE cartridge treatment to eliminate phospholipids. Using this procedure prior to LC/ESI-MS/MS led to the accurate and reproducible quantitation of sirolimus in human whole blood. The linear range of detection was 0.5-50 ng/mL, a range appropriate for TDM, and the method demonstrated good repeatability and intermediate precision within this quantitative range. In order to investigate the quantitative performance of this method, we compared it to two commercially available sirolimus immunoassays and our previously reported LC/ESI-MS/MS method. The immunoassays gave consistently greater values for the sirolimus concentration, and this may be related to antibody cross-reactivity with sirolimus metabolites and/or other matrix effects. Although our procedure is too long to support real-time TDM for outpatients, it can serve as reference method to assess the performance of other analytical methods that are currently available or may be developed in the future.

Determination of blood sirolimus concentrations in liver and kidney transplant recipients using the Innofluor fluorescence polarization immunoassay: comparison with the microparticle enzyme immunoassay and high-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet method

BACKGROUND

Although high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is the method of choice for blood sirolimus determination, the microparticle enzyme immunoassay (MEIA) run on the IMx analyser is widely used in therapeutic monitoring of this immunosuppressant agent. The aim of our study was to evaluate the possible determination of sirolimus using the fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) commercialized for everolimus quantification.

METHODS

Sirolimus concentrations were determined in whole-blood samples from liver and kidney transplant recipients using the Innofluor Certican FPIA (Seradyn Inc.) run on a TDx analyser (Abbott Laboratories), Sirolimus MEIA run on an IMx analyser (Abbott Laboratories), and HPLC (UV detection) methods.

RESULTS

The Innofluor FPIA has a similar cross-reactivity with everolimus and sirolimus, and the within- and between-run coefficients of variation obtained for sirolimus determination were 2.7%-13.3%. In analysing different blood samples from liver and kidney transplant patients the linear regressions obtained were: FPIA = 1.12 HPLC + 0.43 (n=104, r=0.874), MEIA = 1.14 HPLC (n=146, r=0.892), and FPIA = 1.00 MEIA + 0.29 (n=106, r=0.941). Better correlation coefficients were obtained between the methods in the liver transplant samples (r>or=0.900) than in the kidney transplant samples (r>or=0.849). No significant effect was found for sirolimus clearance or the blood hematocrit on the relationship between the results produced by both immunoassays and HPLC.

CONCLUSION

The Innofluor FPIA is a valid alternative with an analogous performance to the MEIA for the therapeutic monitoring of sirolimus.

Comparison of the CEDIA® and MEIA® assays for the measurement of sirolimus in organ transplant recipients

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated two immunoassays, the CEDIA assay and the MEIA assay, used for the measurement of whole blood levels of sirolimus in organ transplant recipients.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We report on the performance characteristics (total precision, limit of quantitation (functional sensitivity), limit of detection (analytical sensitivity), linearity, accuracy) for each assay. Patient correlation studies were performed, and the results were analyzed using Bland-Altman plots and Passing-Bablok analysis.

RESULTS

Total precision for the MEIA assay, corresponding to three mean concentrations of 5.0, 10.6 and 20.2 ng/mL, was 10.5, 8.5, and 6.7%, respectively. The limit of detection was determined to be 1.1 ng/mL and the limit of quantitation was 1.5 ng/mL. The mean recovery for CEDIA was 105.4%, and analysis of proficiency material demonstrated a large negative bias with respect to the mass spectrometry peer mean-later determined to be due to matrix interference. Results for the CEDIA assay showed a total precision, corresponding to a mean concentration of 5.4, 10.5 and 20.7 ng/mL, of 13.5, 5.6, and 4.1%, respectively. The limit of detection was found to be 4.8 ng/mL, with a limit of quantitation of 5.2 ng/mL. The mean recovery for MEIA was 110.1%, and analysis of proficiency material demonstrated good agreement with the mass spectrometry peer mean with a slight positive bias. Both assays were acceptably linear over the reportable range of the assay. Patient correlation studies demonstrated a positive average bias for both assays versus results from LC-MS measurement (0.9 ng/mL for MEIA, 2.1 ng/mL for CEDIA).

CONCLUSION

Based on this evaluation, the MEIA demonstrated acceptable performance for use in clinical monitoring of sirolimus. However, based on a higher limit of quantitation that falls within the therapeutic interval, the CEDIA is not recommended for clinical monitoring of sirolimus.

Switching from HPLC/UV to MEIA for whole blood sirolimus quantitation: comparison of methods

Sirolimus is a immunosuppressive agent for renal transplant recipients. Monitoring of whole blood sirolimus concentration is necessary in order to improve clinical outcomes. An increasing number of clinical laboratories (4-14% during 2005) are using microparticle enzyme immunoassay (MEIA) for sirolimus quantitation but previous reports indicated a high variability, with a mean difference of 17% for MEIA method vs. high-performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet (HPLC/UV). This study was aimed at comparing the reliability of MEIA with the HPLC/UV method. Blood samples from transplant patients were processed using both HPLC/UV and MEIA assays. Comparison and Bland-Altman plots, as well as regression analysis and paired t-test were used to compare results of the assays. Concentrations were stratified into three groups and used to investigate whether any observed difference between methods could be influenced by sirolimus concentration. Regression analysis yielded a coefficient of correlation R of 0.9756, the line of best fit being y=0.9832x+0.1976. The statistical analysis showed no difference between the two sets of experimental data. The average percentage difference between the two methods was found to be -0.2+/-19.2%. On the basis of our present results, the tested MEIA assay is able to quantify sirolimus concentration with a clinically acceptable imprecision, similar to that of HPLC/UV method.

[Comparison of high-resolution liquid chromatography versus microparticle enzyme immunoassay for the measurement of sirolimus levels in renal transplantation]

OBJECTIVE

To compare sirolimus levels measured in whole blood using two analytical techniques: high-resolution liquid chromatography and microparticle enzyme immunoassay, and to evaluate whether hemoglobin, hematocrit, and time from kidney transplantation influence results obtained using the immune-enzymatic technique.

METHOD

A retrospective, observational study in which all transplanted patients with at least one measurement of sirolimus levels using high-resolution liquid chromatography or microparticle enzyme immunoassay from October 2004 to May 2005 were consecutively included. For statistical comparisons simple linear regression, ANCOVA, intra-class correlation coefficient, and the method of agreement limits were all used.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients were assessed for a total of 307 measurements (median: 2, inter-quartile range: 1-4, range: 1-15) of sirolimus levels. The straight-line equation using the linear regression analysis was as follows: MEIA = 0.70 (95% CI: 0.39-1.01) + 1.14 (95% CI: 1.10-1.17) x HPLC/UV. The intra-class correlation coefficient between both measurements was 0.955 (95% CI 0.944-0.964). Mean overestimation using enzyme immunoassay was 24.8% +/- 19.4%. Difference in means between both measurements was 1.9 +/- 1.3 ng/mL. Agreement limits were established between -0.8 ng/mL (95% CI: -1.05; -0.55) and +4.6 ng/mL (95% CI: 4.35; 4.85). Factors such as post-transplant time, hemoglobin, and hematocrit did not influence overestimates obtained using enzyme immunoassays. These results were not influenced by non-independence in measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite enzyme immunoassay overestimates in establishing sirolimus levels in whole blood, its correlation with chromatography is acceptable. Added to its benefits versus chromatographic techniques, this renders enzyme immunoassay a good alternative for the measurement of sirolimus levels in whole blood.

Evaluation of an immunoassay of whole blood sirolimus in pediatric transplant patients in comparison with high-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry

BACKGROUND

Sirolimus is widely used as an immunosuppressant, along with calcineurin inhibitors. Because of its variable pharmacokinetics and narrow therapeutic range, therapeutic drug monitoring of sirolimus is critical to optimize its therapeutic effect and to minimize toxicity. Although liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry is considered the method of choice, the technical and financial challenges of this method are obstacles to its use. A microparticle enzyme immunoassay on the Abbott IMx has recently been reintroduced to the clinical diagnostic market.

METHODS

We evaluated this immunoassay using high-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry as the reference method. Precision and carryover were evaluated using an expanded CLSI EP10-A2 protocol. Linearity was studied by serial dilution of high-level whole blood samples, and clinical utility was demonstrated by correlation with the reference method using 56 de-identified pediatric patient samples.

RESULTS

The total imprecision was less than 12% across the concentrations tested. The method was linear from 2.6 to 31 nM. The immunoassay showed a mean positive bias of 11.5% in patient specimens relative to high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (p<0.001), with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.953.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the reintroduced immunoassay is useful for therapeutic drug monitoring of sirolimus.

Toxicology: Then and now

Toxicology is "the science of poisons"; more specifically the chemical and physical properties of poisons, their physiological or behavioral effects on living organisms, qualitative, and quantitative methods for their analysis and the development of procedures for the treatment of poisoning. Although the history of poisons dates to the earliest times, the study and the science of toxicology can be traced to Paracelsus (1493-1541) and Orfila (1757-1853). Modern toxicology is characterized by sophisticated scientific investigation and evaluation of toxic exposures. The 20th century is marked by an advanced level of understanding of toxicology. DNA and various biochemicals that maintain cellular functions were discovered. Our level of knowledge of toxic effects on organs and cells is now being revealed at the molecular level. This paper will review the historical progress of clinical and forensic toxicology by exploring analytical techniques in drug analysis, differing biological matrices, clinical toxicology, therapeutic drug management, workplace drug testing, and pharmacodynamic monitoring and pharmacogenetics.

Comparison of the Reintroduced MEIA® Assay With HPLC-MS/MS for the Determination of Whole-Blood Sirolimus From Transplant Recipients

Therapeutic monitoring with dosage individualization of sirolimus drug therapy is standard clinical practice for organ transplant recipients. For several years sirolimus monitoring has been restricted as a result of lack of an immunoassay. The recent reintroduction of the microparticle enzyme immunoassay (MEIA) for sirolimus on the IMx analyser has the potential to address this situation. This study, using patient samples, has compared the MEIA sirolimus method with an established HPLC-tandem mass spectrometry method (HPLC-MS/MS). An established HPLC-UV assay was used for independent cross-validation. For quality control materials (5, 11, 22 microg/L), the MEIA showed acceptable validation criteria based on intra- and inter-run precision (CV) and accuracy (bias) of <8% and <13%, respectively. The lower limit of quantitation was found to be approximately 3 microg/L. The performance of the immunoassay was compared with HPLC-MS/MS using EDTA whole-blood samples obtained from various types of organ transplant recipients (n = 116). The resultant Deming regression line was: MEIA =1.3 x HPLC-MS/MS + 1.3 (r = 0.967, S(y/x) = 1) with a mean bias of 49.2% +/- 23.1% (range, -2.4% to 128%; P<0.001). The reason for the large and variable bias was not explored in this study, but the sirolimus-metabolite cross-reactivity with the MEIA antibody could be a substantive contributing factor. Whereas the MEIA sirolimus method may be an adjunct to sirolimus dosage individualization in transplant recipients, users must consider the implications of the substantial and variable bias when interpreting results. In selected patients where difficult clinical issues arise, reference to a specific chromatographic method may be required.

High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Versus Immunoassay for the Measurement of Sirolimus: Comparison of Two Methods

Sirolimus is an immunosuppressive agent administered as prophylaxis of acute rejection to patients after kidney transplantation. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of whole blood is an important part of immunosuppressive therapy. At present, two methods of measuring drug concentrations are available: the reference method is high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with ultraviolet (UV) or mass spectrometry (MS) detection and a second technique is the IMx sirolimus assay, which is an enzyme immunoassay using microparticles coated with anti-sirolimus antibodies (MEIA). The objective of this study was to compare the two methods. We examined a group of 42 patients receiving sirolimus after kidney transplantation. Blood was taken during routine ambulatory visits. The drug concentration in blood was performed at the same time by the two methods. To compare the methods, a statistical analysis was performed, yielding: r-value = 0.939 (r(2)); slope = 1.04; intercept = +0.38. The mean concentration of sirolimus was higher in the immunoassay than in the HPLC method namely, 9.7 +/- 6.4 ng/mL versus 8.9 +/- 5.8 ng/mL respectively. The HPLC method showed high sensitivity and specificity, but it was time consuming and labor intensive. The MEIA method is burdened with a high risk of methodologic error, due to its lack of specificity caused by cross-reactions with drug metabolites. We concluded that HPLC with its high sensitivity and analytical specificity is still the reference method; however, MEIA may be a fast method for use in clinical practice.

Sirolimus: Its role in nephrology (Review Article)

Sirolimus (Rapamycin, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Australia Pty Ltd, Baulkham Hills, NSW, Australia) (SRL) has received increasing attention as an immunosuppressant in renal and other solid organ transplantation. Sirolimus is the first marketed agent in a new class of drugs with a novel mechanism of action. Sirolimus binds, like tacrolimus, to a member of the FK binding protein (FKBP) family. The SRL/FKBP complex binds to the protein kinase mTOR. Binding to mTOR blocks activation of signal transduction pathways causing arrest of the cell cycle in the G1 phase. It is now known that mTOR is a central regulator of cell growth and proliferation. The immunosuppressive properties of SRL are due primarily to blockade of interleukin-2 (IL-2)-induced proliferation of T cells. There is still much to be learnt about how best to use the drug. The key advantage over the current choice of immunosuppressive agents is the ability to preserve renal function and pathology while producing excellent rejection-free, graft survival rates. Thus, SRL may find its pivotal role as a calcineurin inhibitors replacement in patients whose grafts are affected by chronic allograft nephropathy. A second major driver for use may prove to be the impact of SRL on cancer incidence and prognosis. Studies still need to be performed to evaluate the best timing for commencement of SRL and the optimal dosage to minimize side-effects.