Evaluation of the AxSYM CyA assay compared with HPLC, TDx monoclonal and EMIT with both pretreatments

Clinical laboratory diagnostics of immunosuppressants: One laboratory’s journey

Laboratory support for the organ transplant patient is the provision of the best testing technology for a specific and accurate determination of immunosuppressive drug level. This translates to better management with the therapeutic cocktail of immunosuppressive drugs used with a lesser incidence of organ rejection and side effects. Over the years, development of automated immunoassay/chemistry test platforms with standardization of test protocols has demonstrated great improvements. The present clinical laboratory services with tandem mass spectrometry in our hospital present more precise and specific therapeutic drug monitoring so necessary still for the patient. This article follows the evolving testing technologies over the years for immunosuppressive drug monitoring following the organ transplants programme (renal in general) in Singapore General Hospital.

CEDIA® Sirolimus Assay Compared With HPLC-MS/MS and HPLC-UV in Transplant Recipient Specimens

The role of the therapeutic drug monitoring laboratory in support of immunosuppressant drug therapy is well established, and the introduction of sirolimus (SRL) is a new direction in this field. The lack of an immunoassay for several years has restricted the availability of SRL assay services. The recent availability of a CEDIA SRL assay has the potential to improve this situation. The present communication has compared the CEDIA SRL method with 2 established chromatographic methods, HPLC-UV and HPLC-MS/MS. The CEDIA method, run on a Hitachi 917 analyzer, showed acceptable validation criteria with within-assay precision of 9.1% and 3.3%, and bias of 17.1% and 5.8%, at SRL concentrations of 5.0 microg/L and 20 microg/L, respectively. The corresponding between-run precision values were 11.5% and 3.3% and bias of 7.1% and 2.9% at 5.0 microg/L and 20 microg/L, respectively. The lower limit of quantification was found to be 3.0 microg/L. A series of 96 EDTA whole-blood samples predominantly from renal transplant recipients were assayed by the 3 methods for comparison. It was found that the CEDIA method showed a Deming regression line of CEDIA=1.20xHPLC-MS/MS-0.07 (r=0.934, SEE=.47), with a mean bias of 20.4%. Serial blood samples from 8 patients included in this evaluation showed that the CEDIA method reflected the clinical fluctuations in the chromatographic methods, albeit with the variable bias noted. The CEDIA method on the H917 analyzer is therefore a useful adjunct to SRL dosage individualization in renal transplant recipients.

Review article: monitoring of immunomodulators in inflammatory bowel disease

The armamentarium of medications for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease is growing and becoming more complicated to use. Immunomodulators are a class of medications that have found a niche for the treatment of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Because of the mounting supporting evidence for efficacy, the most commonly-used immunomodulators are azathioprine, mercaptopurine, methotrexate and ciclosporin. These medications are being used more often due to their steroid-sparing and potentially surgery-sparing effects. Immunomodulators are also known for a significant side-effect profile and require careful monitoring. This review provides the latest information for clinicians on efficacy, side-effects, dosing and monitoring of these medications for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.

Analytic Aspects of Cyclosporine Monitoring, on Behalf of the IFCC/IATDMCT Joint Working Group

The use of therapeutic drug monitoring strategies for cyclosporin (CsA) has evolved markedly in recent years since previous consensus guidelines were presented. Apart from the introduction of some new methods, the major change has been the shift away from the traditional predose/trough (C0) sample. The most popular alternative has been shown to be a 2-hour postdose (C2) sample. This has presented a challenge to clinical laboratories where typical C2 sample concentrations exceed the upper limit of the calibration range for their chosen CsA method, hence requiring an accurate dilution to be performed. Data from the Australian/New Zealand survey, as well as that in the International CsA Proficiency Testing Program, have demonstrated both a plethora of dilution protocols and resultant widespread failure of many laboratories to obtain accurate results. This paper compares data from several independent sources, pointing to international problems for reliable CsA measurement in clinical laboratories. This includes the CsA method selection criteria adopted by a large percentage of laboratories in various surveys, indicating that the least specific mFPIA methods have been widely adopted.

Evaluation of a new pretreatment reagent for use with the EMIT 2000 cyclosporine assay

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the performance of the new pretreatment (NPT) reagent for use with the EMIT cyclosporine A (CsA) assay.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Samples from transplant patients receiving CsA were tested using a COBAS MIRA S.

RESULTS

A downward shift in target values for commercial controls was observed using the NPT reagent. There was excellent correlation for patient results when comparing the NPT reagent with methanol pretreatment.

CONCLUSION

The NPT reagent is an acceptable substitute for methanol in the EMIT(R) extraction procedure for CsA.

Comparison of the fluorescent polarization (TDx) and the enzymatic competitive (EMIT 2000) immune assays for the measurement of cyclosporin A blood concentration

Evaluation of Cyclosporin A (CyA) blood concentration is imperative in solid organ transplantation in order to achieve maximal immunosuppression with the least side effects. We compared the results of whole blood concentrations of CyA in 50 blood samples simultaneously evaluated by the fluorescent polarization immune assay (TDx) and the enzymatic competitive immune assay (EMIT 2000). There was a strong correlation between both kits for any range of CyA blood concentration (R=0.99, p<0.001). The within-run and between-days coefficient of variation were less than 4% for both assays. The cost for each CyA measurement was 50% lower for the EMIT assay when compared to the TDx assay. We concluded that the EMIT is as accurate as the TDx in measuring CyA blood concentration and has the advantage of a lower cost, as well as the possibility of widespread access to the EMIT methodology in contrast to the TDx equipment, allowing the laboratory to perform several routines within a working day.

Performance and Specificity of Monoclonal Immunoassays for Cyclosporine Monitoring: How Specific Is Specific?

Background: Immunoassays designed for the selective measurement of cyclosporin A (CsA) inadvertently show cross-reactivity for CsA metabolites. The extent and clinical significance of the resulting overestimation is controversial. A comprehensive assessment of old and new methods in clinical specimens is needed.

Methods: In a comprehensive evaluation, CsA was analyzed in 145 samples with the new CEDIA® assay and compared with the Emit® assay with the old and new pretreatments, the TDx® monoclonal and polyclonal assays, the AxSYM®, and HPLC. All samples were from patients with liver and/or kidney transplants.

Results: The CEDIA offered the easiest handling, followed by the AxSYM, which showed the longest calibration stability. The TDx monoclonal assay provided the lowest detection limit and the lowest CVs. The mean differences compared with HPLC were as follows: Emit, 9–12%; CEDIA, 18%; AxSYM, 29%; and TDx monoclonal, 57%. The CycloTrac® RIA paralleled the Emit results. In contrast to the mean differences, substantial (&gt;200%) and variable overestimations of the CsA concentration were observed in individual patient samples. Metabolic ratios, estimates of the overall concentrations of several cross-reacting metabolites (nonspecific TDx polyclonal/specific reference method), correlated with the apparent biases of the various monoclonal assays. Metabolic ratios varied up to 10-fold, which translated into biases for individual samples between −7% and +174%. The higher the cross-reactivity of an assay was, the higher was the range of biases observed. The interindividual differences markedly exceeded other factors of influence (organ transplanted, hepatic function).

Conclusion: Because assay bias cannot be predicted in individual samples, substantially erratic CsA dosing can result. The specificity of CsA assays for parent CsA remains a major concern.