Detecting the interferences in adrenocorticotropic hormone measurement - three cases reinforcing the efficiency of the complementary clinical and laboratory audit

Accurate measurement of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) is crucial in the evaluation of pituitary and adrenal disorders. Although great progress has been achieved in ACTH measurement with immunometric assays, interference may occur and adversely affect the clinical management. The report contributes to compiling the evidence on the clinical challenges with the management of the interferences in the ACTH measurement by presenting three cases: two with clinically overt hypercortisolism and discrepant ACTH concentrations within the reference interval; the third case describes the falsely elevated ACTH in a patient with secondary adrenal insufficiency. In all patients, the results obtained with the two immunometric platforms, chemiluminescence (CLIA) immunoassay (Siemens, Immulite) and electrochemiluminescence (ECLIA) immunoassay (Roche, Cobas), were discordant. Serial dilution of plasma samples revealed nonlinearity. After polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation recoveries were less than 22%, 26%, and 3%, respectively, supporting interference. Moreover, a decrease in ACTH concentration after incubation in a heterophile antibody-blocking tube was observed in the second case. In the first case, misinterpretation of ACTH led to inferior petrosal sinus sampling (IPSS), whereas timely detection of assay interference prevented further investigations in other cases. Increasing awareness regarding ACTH interference and comprehensive approach in evaluation could allow timely detection, helping to prevent unnecessary testing and perplexing clinical outcomes.

Sensitivity of Different ACTH and Cortisol Concentration Values in Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone Based Tests in Cushing's Disease

PURPOSE

In Cushing's disease (CD) patients, the aim of the present study is to confirm sensitivity of several ACTH and cortisol concentration values in different time points, during corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) stimulation test and during CRH stimulation following dexamethasone suppression (DEX-CRH) test.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed cortisol and ACTH concentration increment during CRH and DEX-CRH tests in 23 patients with confirmed CD. Cortisol and ACTH concentrations were determined immediately before, 15 min and 30 min after CRH stimulation. We evaluated the sensitivity of different cutoff values including those reported in previous studies, in the diagnosis of CD.

RESULTS

During DEX-CRH test, 15 min serum cortisol concentration of 1.4 μg/dl (38 nmol/L) had a sensitivity of 90.9%, and serum cortisol concentration ≥1.27 μg/dl (35 nmol/L) had a sensitivity of 100%. For plasma ACTH, sensitivity of 100% was obtained using ACTH ≥3.5pmol/L (16 pg/ml) at 30 min. During CRH test, 35% increase from baseline in ACTH concentration had a sensitivity of 72.7%. Twenty percent increase in cortisol 30 minutes after stimulation yielded a sensitivity of 85.7%. The best sensitivity of ACTH and cortisol increment was obtained 15 min after stimulation, using 19% and 9% increase, respectively (sensitivity of 100% and 92.8%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

During CRH and DEX-CRH tests, the study findings agree with the good sensitivity of ACTH and cortisol cutoff values suggested in previous studies; yet, other cutoff values may give a higher diagnostic sensitivity.

An Intact ACTH LC-MS/MS Assay as an Arbiter of Clinically Discordant Immunoassay Results

BACKGROUND

Measurement of plasma adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) is key in the differential diagnosis of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal disorders. Two-site sandwich immunoassays dominate clinical testing of ACTH in North America; however, discordant results between manufacturers have been repeatedly reported. To resolve the discrepancy, we developed a liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assay for the intended measurand, biologically active intact ACTH (iACTH).

METHODS

The multiple reaction monitoring LC-MS/MS assay was designed to selectively measure full-length iACTH, as well as ACTH analogs and fragments (i.e., ACTH1–24 and ACTH18–39). Epitope assignment of the Roche Elecsys antibodies was performed by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. A method comparison between Roche Elecsys and Siemens Immulite ACTH immunoassays was performed and clinically concordant/discordant results identified. In a subset of these samples, the iACTH concentration was determined using the LC-MS/MS method.

RESULTS

The lower limit of the measuring interval of the iACTH LC-MS/MS assay was 9 pg/mL (2 pmol/L). The assay was linear from 9 to 1938 pg/mL (2 to 427 pmol/L). Epitope mapping revealed that the Roche capture and detection antibodies bound residues 9–12 and 36–39 of ACTH, respectively. The iACTH LC-MS/MS analysis demonstrated that for discordant results between 2 immunoassays studied, only the Roche results were highly positively correlated with the iACTH concentration.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunoprecipitation of biologically active ACTH molecules followed by LC-MS/MS analysis enabled selective detection of iACTH and relevant biologically active fragments in plasma. Applied to the investigation of clinically discrepant results, this method can act as an arbiter of the concentration of iACTH present.

Falsely elevated plasma ACTH levels measured by the Elecsys assay related to heterophilic antibody in a case of secondary adrenocortical insufficiency

A 49-year-old woman with membranous nephropathy was referred to our hospital during the tapering of oral prednisolone, because of suspicion of primary adrenal insufficiency based on a plasma ACTH level of 399.1 pg/mL in the Elecsys assay and a serum cortisol level of 3.1 μg/dL. A rapid ACTH stimulation test revealed a suboptimal response, whereas a prolonged ACTH simulation test showed a sufficient increase in her urinary free cortisol. Also, big ACTH was not detected by gel exclusion chromatography. Therefore, we speculated that ACTH levels were falsely elevated due to some interference substances. Pretreatment of her plasma with either polyethylene glycol precipitation or a heterophilic blocking tube substantially reduced her ACTH values. When either the Immulite ACTH II or the TOSOH II ACTH was tried instead of the Elecsys ACTH, her plasma ACTH values turned out to be lower and appropriate for her clinical status. These results indicated that heterophilic antibodies interfered only with the Elecsys ACTH assay presumably by bridging the capture and tracer antibodies. To our knowledge, this is the first case in which the Elecsys ACTH assay yielded falsely elevated results. Regardless of the measurement system used, if there is a discordance between assay results and clinical findings, it should be considered to adopt additional procedures and/or another assay.

When laboratory tests can mislead even when they appear plausible

A laboratory test has three phases, pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical. The purpose of this review is to highlight an issue concerning the analytical phase of one of the most widely deployed groups of in vitro diagnostic tests using a common technology - namely immunoassay.Immunoassay entails an inherently high error rate and, therefore, has the potential for inaccurate and misleading results susceptible to misinterpretation and/or diagnostic misapplication by clinicians. An approach based on Bayesian inference (without mathematics or equations) - illustrated by examples - is presented; this may help clinicians in discerning potentially erroneous results even when they appear plausible and not unreasonable.Essentially, false positive results are most likely to occur when the disease prevalence/incidence is low. False negative results become more prominent when the prevalence/incidence of disease increases. When concern is raised, available follow-up laboratory tests should be initiated to establish with confidence the diagnostic reliability or unreliability of such results.

Interference in ACTH immunoassay negatively impacts the management of subclinical hypercortisolism

PURPOSE

Low plasma corticotropin is considered a useful parameter for the diagnosis of subclinical hypercortisolism in patients with an adrenal incidentaloma. However, immunoassays are vulnerable to interference from endogenous antibodies. In this study, subjects who underwent Hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis evaluation for the assessment of subclinical hypercortisolism were evaluated. The objective of the study was to ascertain whether antibody interference in corticotropin immunoassay affected the diagnostic work-up and clinical decisions.

METHODS

The 437 consecutive patients with incidentally discovered adrenal adenomas were included in this single centre study. Patients who had a combination of a nonsuppressed corticotropin concentration (>4.4 pmol/L) and a non-suppressed cortisol concentration after 1 mg overnight dexamethasone suppression test (>50 nmol/L) were selected. Eight eligible subjects without specific features of Cushing's syndrome were identified and recruited for interference studies and follow-up. Nine controls including one patient with unilateral adrenalectomy and one patient with Cushing's disease were recruited as well.

MEASUREMENTS

Eligible subjects and controls were subjected to hormonal tests and investigations for suspected interference. Interference studies included measurement of corticotropin on a different analytical platform, serial dilutions, polyethylene glycol precipitation and heterophilic antibody analysis. Patients were followed with clinical and laboratory parameters for a median duration of 30 (12-90) months.

RESULTS

Antibody interference was identified in four patients. Rheumatoid factor was responsible for the interference in one patient. Clinical management of the patients was affected by the erroneous results. Interference tests were negative in control subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Erroneous results associated with analytical interference negatively impacted on clinical decision making in this patient group. This should be considered particularly in conditions such as subclinical hypercortisolism which decisions depend on laboratory investigations mainly. Analytical interference could explain the high variability observed both in field measurements from patients who were expected to have lower corticotropin concentrations and in subclinical hypercortisolism prevalence reported by different studies. Many problems can be resolved by ensuring good communication between clinical and laboratory staff.

Identifying and reducing potentially wrong immunoassay results even when plausible and "not-unreasonable"

The primary role of the clinical laboratory is to report accurate results for diagnosis of disease and management of illnesses. This goal has, to a large extent been achieved for routine biochemical tests, but not for immunoassays which remained susceptible to interference from endogenous immunoglobulin antibodies, causing false, and clinically misleading results. Clinicians regard all abnormal results including false ones as "pathological" necessitating further investigations, or concluding iniquitous diagnosis. Even more seriously, "false-negative" results may wrongly exclude pathology, thus denying patients' necessary treatment. Analytical error rate in immunoassays is relatively high, ranging from 0.4% to 4.0%. Because analytical interference from endogenous antibodies is confined to individuals' sera, it can be inconspicuous, pernicious, sporadic, and insidious because it cannot be detected by internal or external quality assessment procedures. An approach based on Bayesian reasoning can enhance the robustness of clinical validation in highlighting potentially erroneous immunoassay results. When this rational clinical/statistical approach is followed by analytical affirmative follow-up tests, it can help identifying inaccurate and clinically misleading immunoassay data even when they appear plausible and "not-unreasonable." This chapter is largely based on peer reviewed articles associated with and related to this approach. The first section underlines (without mathematical equations) the dominance and misuse of conventional statistics and the underuse of Bayesian paradigm and shows that laboratorians are intuitively (albeit unwittingly) practicing Bayesians. Secondly, because interference from endogenous antibodies is method's dependent (with numerous formats and different reagents), it is almost impossible to accurately assess its incidence in all differently formulated immunoassays and for each analytes/biomarkers. However, reiterating the basic concepts underpinning interference from endogenous antibodies can highlight why interference will remain analytically pernicious, sporadic, and an inveterate problem. The following section discuses various stratagems to reduce this source of inaccuracy in current immunoassay results including the role of Bayesian reasoning. Finally, the role of three commonly used follow-up affirmative tests and their interpretation in confirming analytical interference is discussed.