Affinity Column-mediated Immunoassay Research Articles

Validation of an automated sample preparation module directly connected to LC-MS/MS (CLAM-LC-MS/MS system) and comparison with conventional immunoassays for quantitation of tacrolimus and cyclosporin A in a clinical setting

BackgroundTherapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) systems generally use either liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) or immunoassay, though both methodologies have disadvantages. In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether a CLAM-LC-MS/MS system, which consists of a sample preparation module directly connected to LC-MS/MS, could be used for clinical TDM work for immunosuppressive drugs in whole blood, which requires a hemolytic process. For this purpose, we prospectively validated this system for clinical measurement of tacrolimus and cyclosporin A in patients’ whole blood. The results were also compared with those of commercial immunoassays.MethodsWhole blood from patients treated with tacrolimus or cyclosporin A at the Department of Nephrology and Departments of Rheumatology, Kanazawa University Hospital, from May 2018 to July 2019 was collected with informed consent, and drug concentrations were measured by CLAM-LC-MS/MS and by chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) for tacrolimus and affinity column-mediated immunoassay (ACMIA) for cyclosporin A. Correlations between the CLAM-LC-MS/MS and immunoassay results were analyzed.ResultsTwo hundred and twenty-four blood samples from 80 patients were used for tacrolimus measurement, and 76 samples from 21 patients were used for cyclosporin A. Intra- and inter-assay precision values of quality controls were less than 7%. There were significant correlations between CLAM-LC-MS/MS and the immunoassays for tacrolimus and cyclosporin A (Spearman rank correlation coefficients: 0.861, 0.941, P < 0.00001 in each case). The drug concentrations measured by CLAM-LC-MS/MS were about 20% lower than those obtained using the immunoassays. CLAM-LC-MS/MS maintenance requirements did not interfere with clinical operations. Compared to manual pretreatment, automated pretreatment by CLAM showed lower inter-assay precision values and greatly reduced the pretreatment time.ConclusionsThe results obtained by CLAM-LC-MS/MS were highly correlated with those of commercial immunoassay methods. CLAM-LC-MS/MS offers advantages in clinical TDM practice, including simple, automatic pretreatment, low maintenance requirement, and avoidance of interference.

Comparison of 4 Commercial Immunoassays Used in Measuring the Concentration of Tacrolimus in Blood and Their Cross-Reactivity to Its Metabolites

Therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus is necessary for appropriate dose adjustment for a successful immunosuppressive therapy. Several commercial immunoassays are available for tacrolimus measurements. This study aimed at simultaneously evaluating the analytical performances of 4 such immunoassays, using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) as a standard. For the first time, cross-reactivity to tacrolimus metabolites was assessed at concentrations frequently observed in clinical settings, as opposed to the higher concentrations tested by assay manufacturers. An affinity column-mediated immunoassay (ACMIA), using upgraded flex reagents; released in 2015, a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA), and a latex agglutination turbidimetric immunoassay (LTIA) were evaluated using frozen whole blood samples collected from transplantation patients. Cross-reactivities to 3 major tacrolimus metabolites (13-O-demethyl-tacrolimus [M-I], 31-O-demethyl-tacrolimus [M-II], and 15-O-demethyl-tacrolimus [M-III]) were evaluated. Each immunoassay correlated well with LC-MS/MS, and the Pearson's correlation coefficients (R) were 0.974, 0.977, 0.978, and 0.902 for ACMIA, CLIA, ECLIA, and LTIA, respectively. Using Bland-Altman difference plots to compare the immunoassays with LC-MS/MS, the calculated average biases were -6.73%, 6.07%, 7.46%, and 12.27% for ACMIA, CLIA, ECLIA, and LTIA, respectively. The cross-reactivities of ACMIA to the tacrolimus metabolites M-II and M-III were 81% and 78%, respectively, when blood was spiked at 2 ng/mL, and 94% and 68%, respectively, when it was spiked at 5 ng/mL. Each immunoassay was useful, but had its own characteristics. ACMIA cross-reactivities to M-II and M-III were much higher than the respective 18% and 15% reported on its package insert, suggesting that cross-reactivity should be examined at clinically relevant concentrations.

Comparison of whole‐blood tacrolimus concentrations measured by different immunoassay systems

Different measured values for tacrolimus were obtained with different automated immunoassays. We aimed to examine the differences in the blood tacrolimus concentrations measured by the major immunoassay systems commercially available in Japan. Whole-blood samples from 118 patients were assayed by 3 commercial assays: chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLIA), affinity column-mediated immunoassay (ACMIA), and enzyme-multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT). Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was used for reference. The correlation coefficient of immunoassay vs LC-MS/MS was excellent for ACMIA (.83) and CLIA (.81) and good for EMIT (.71). The mean error was negative for ACMIA and positive for CLIA and EMIT. The mean absolute error and root-mean-square error were almost the same for ACMIA and CLIA and lower than those for EMIT. The ACMIA and CLIA yield considerably better results than the EMIT for monitoring blood tacrolimus concentrations.

Inter-laboratory Variability of Current Immunoassay Methods for Tacrolimus among Japanese Hospitals.

The aim of this study was to assess inter-hospital laboratory variability (coefficient of variation; CV) of immunoassay methods for tacrolimus and the comparability of control samples and results obtained by immunoassay measurements. One hundred seven hospital laboratories routinely performing therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of tacrolimus participated in the study. Thirteen spiked samples with known tacrolimus concentrations in the range of 0-26.0 ng/mL were prepared. Each spiked sample was analyzed according to the manufacturer's instructions using an affinity column-mediated immunoassay (ACMIA) on a Dimension(®) analyzer, the enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT) on a Viva-E(®) analyzer, a chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLIA) on the Architect(®) system, and the electro-chemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) on a cobas(®) analyzer. The 20% coefficient of variation values for the CLIA, ACMIA, EMIT, and ECLIA assays in the hospital laboratories were 1.82, 5.36, 4.59, and 0.89 ng/mL, respectively. CLIA and ECLIA had positive biases at concentrations of tacrolimus above 12 ng/mL relative to the spiked concentration, whereas the assay bias for ACMIA tended to be more negative at concentrations of tacrolimus above 6 ng/mL. EMIT had positive biases over the wide concentration range of 0.0-26.0 ng/mL (mean of mean errors 1.224). CLIA and ECLIA provided adequate precision at the target tacrolimus concentration of 3.0 ng/mL, whereas ACMIA and EMIT were unable to respond to target concentrations between 3.0 and 5.0 ng/mL for renal transplant recipients. Appropriate assessment of tacrolimus concentration by an assay having higher sensitivity, precision, and accuracy is necessary to ensure long-term survival of transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus.

Comparison of tacrolimus concentration measured by affinity column mediated immunoassay (ACMIA) and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLIA)

Comparison of tacrolimus concentration measured by affinity column mediated immunoassay (ACMIA) and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLIA)

TDMの落とし穴

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is an essential tool for the optimal use of drugs. Although rare, the drug concentration in blood determined by TDM can be higher or lower than that predicted from the dosage amount and patient information. In such cases, it is necessary to consider the occurrence of false positives and false negatives in the measurement process. Dose adjustment based on the measured blood drug concentration poses potential risks of underdosing and overdosing in patients suspected of false positive and false negative data, respectively. Therefore, pharmacists involved in TDM are required to become familiar with false positives and false negatives in TDM. In particular, the possibility of false positives in TDM of immunosuppressants by the affinity column-mediated immunoassay (ACMIA) method should be considered, while TDM of vancomycin or phenytoin requires attention to false negatives during measurement by the particle-enhanced turbidimetric inhibition immunoassay (PETINIA) method. Moreover, interference from IgM in the measurement process may be of concern in false-negative results; therefore, the measured blood drug concentration needs to be verified when the blood IgM level is high. This mini-review outlines false positives and false negatives that should be considered in TDM and presents a discussion of the relevant literature.

Assessment of Four Methodologies (Microparticle Enzyme Immunoassay, Chemiluminescent Enzyme Immunoassay, Affinity Column-Mediated Immunoassay, and Flow Injection Assay-Tandem Mass Spectrometry) for Measuring Tacrolimus Blood Concentration in Japanese Liver Transplant Recipients

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and subsequent dosage adjustment for individual patients in the treatment with tacrolimus are required after liver transplantation to prevent rejection and over-immunosuppression, which leads to severe infection and adverse reactions including nephrotoxicity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the analytical performance among commercially available immunoassay methods, which were microparticle enzyme immunoassay (MEIA), chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLIA), and affinity column-mediated immunoassay (ACMIA), compared with an assay using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). In addition, the flow injection assay (FIA-MS/MS) was also evaluated to determine whether it could be available as a new method of analysis in tacrolimus therapy. The blood tacrolimus concentrations in samples from liver transplant recipients (n = 102) were measured using MEIA, CLIA, ACMIA, and LC-MS/MS. Additional blood samples from liver transplant recipients (n = 54) were analyzed using both FIA-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS. Because the assay performance and characteristics of MEIA, CLIA, ACMIA, and FIA-MS/MS are relatively different, the measured data should be carefully considered depending on the methodology.

Low Plasma Concentrations of Albumin Influence the Affinity Column–Mediated Immunoassay Method for the Measurement of Tacrolimus in Blood During the Early Period After Liver Transplantation

Monitoring of tacrolimus (TAC) concentrations in transplanted patients is necessary to ensure effective immunosuppression and to avoid adverse side effects. The fully automated analysis of TAC by the affinity column-mediated immunoassay (ACMIA), which does not require a precipitation step, may represent an efficient alternative to liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), including in the clinically urgent situation. The aim of this work was to compare the analytical performances of ACMIA with those of LC-MS/MS and to evaluate the influence of hematological parameters, time posttransplant, and type of transplant on the results obtained from routine blood samples. Performance characteristics of ACMIA were evaluated using quality control materials and samples spiked with TAC from the International Proficiency Testing Scheme. One hundred and fifty-eight whole-blood samples from patients who received a liver (n = 55) or kidney (n = 14) transplant were assayed by ACMIA and LC-MS/MS, and hematologic, biochemical, and demographic data were collected. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were also performed to assess associations between the interassay differences with clinical and laboratory parameters. For artificially spiked samples, the average difference between results obtained by ACMIA and LC-MS/MS was 0.24 ± 0.51 ng/mL (2.91 ± 7.03%). Crosschecking of calibrators and controls by both methods was in accordance with the nominal concentrations of TAC. The lower limit of quantification of ACMIA was found to be 3.0 ng/mL. The results with the 2 methods using routine samples from the transplant recipients correlated well (Spearman's r = 0.90). However, the ACMIA method demonstrated a positive mean bias of 1.78 ng/mL in comparison with LC-MS/MS. Multivariate analysis showed that liver transplant and albumin plasma concentrations significantly and independently affected ACMIA results (P = 0.033 and P = 0.001, respectively). Samples from liver transplant recipients early postsurgery were associated with a larger method bias than those from renal transplant recipients. Results obtained by ACMIA must be interpreted cautiously, particularly at lower TAC concentrations. Patients with low plasma concentrations of albumin are likely to display higher concentrations of TAC compared with LC-MS/MS in the early postsurgery period.

Interference Between Eplerenone and Digoxin in Fluorescence Polarization Immunoassay, Microparticle Enzyme Immunoassay, and Affinity Column-Mediated Immunoassay

Digitalis-like immunoreactive substances have crossreactivity with antidigoxin antibodies and the interference between digoxin and spironolactone/canrenone has been reported. The structure of eplerenone is similar to that of spironolactone/canrenone. Therefore, we hypothesized that eplerenone might also interfere with the measurement of digoxin by immunoassay. We performed three types of assays (fluorescence polarization immunoassay [FPIA], microparticle enzyme immunoassay [MEIA], and affinity column-mediated immunoassay [ACMIA]) to determine crossreactions between eplerenone and antidigoxin antibodies. Furthermore, we used FPIA, MEIA, and ACMIA to measure the apparent digoxin concentration in mixed solutions of eplerenone (1-100 μg/mL) and digoxin (1-3 ng/mL). In the crossreaction tests, eplerenone was detected as digoxin by FPIA and ACMIA. By FPIA, a known concentration of 1 μg/mL of eplerenone was measured as 0.33 ± 0.11 ng/mL of digoxin (crossreaction rate, 0.03%). By ACMIA, a known concentration of 10 μg/mL of eplerenone was measured as 0.13 ± 0.05 ng/mL of digoxin (crossreaction rate, 0.001%). No crossreaction between eplerenone and digoxin was determined by MEIA. In the interference of eplerenone coadministered with digoxin, the apparent concentration of digoxin was increased in FPIA, but decreased in MEIA and ACMIA. The results suggest that eplerenone crossreacts with antidigoxin antibodies in FPIA, MEIA, and ACMIA, but that the interference of eplerenone might be smaller than that of spironolactone/canrenone.

Difference in blood tacrolimus concentration between ACMIA and MEIA in samples with low haematocrit values

The aim was to compare blood tacrolimus concentrations in anaemic patients between affinity column-mediated immunoassay (ACMIA) and microparticle enzyme immunoassay (MEIA). Blood concentrations of tacrolimus in 235 whole-blood samples from 64 patients treated with tacrolimus were determined by the two assay methods. Fifty-three samples had low haematocrit (Ht) values (<25%), whereas the other samples had normal Ht values. Measured tacrolimus concentrations in samples with normal Ht values did not differ between ACMIA and MEIA (median, range; 6.6, 0-29.1 vs 7.3, 0-27.4 ng/ml). On the other hand, MEIA determined significantly higher tacrolimus concentrations in samples with lower Ht values compared with ACMIA (14.0, 2.4-25.7 vs 11.5, 0-21.3 ng/ml; P < 0.05). This difference was caused by overestimated blood concentrations in MEIA derived from lower Ht values, which could be corrected using the Ht value for each sample (calculated MEIA (MEIAcalc)). The corrected concentrations (MEIAcalc; 10.8, 0-21.3 ng/ml) were comparable with those of ACMIA. It was confirmed that the difference in concentrations between ACMIA and MEIA was remarkable in routine monitoring of blood tacrolimus for a liver transplant recipient with anaemia. ACMIA can be applied to routine therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus therapy in anaemic patients.

Falsely Elevated Whole Blood Tacrolimus Concentrations due to Interference in an Affinity Column-Mediated Immunoassay Method on Xpand Dimension

The whole blood concentration of tacrolimus is required for therapeutic drug monitoring of this immunosuppressive drug. Abnormal tacrolimus levels affect its efficacy or toxicity, leading to changes in its dosage. Here, we report analytical interference in the affinity column-mediated immunoassay tacrolimus method on the Xpand autoanalyzer in a kidney transplant human immunodeficiency virus-infected patient. Tacrolimus concentrations obtained by affinity column-mediated immunoassay are 3- to 7-fold higher than measurements with the enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique assay. The cause of this interference remains unknown. However, it would be necessary to identify this type of interference to measure tacrolimus concentration with another method to avoid analytical error, which may lead to a poor clinical outcome.

Is the Affinity Column–Mediated Immunoassay Method Suitable as an Alternative to the Microparticle Enzyme Immunoassay Method as a Blood Tacrolimus Assay?

Background Tacrolimus is a potent immunosuppressive drug used in organ transplantation. Because of its substantial toxic effects, narrow therapeutic index, and interindividual pharmacokinetic variability, therapeutic drug monitoring of whole-blood tacrolimus concentrations has been recommended. We investigated the comparability of the results of 2 immunoassay systems, affinity column–mediated immunoassay (ACMIA) and microparticle enzyme immunoassay (MEIA), comparing differences in the tacrolimus concentrations measured by the 2 methods in relation to the hematologic and biochemical values of hepatic and renal functions. Methods A total of 154 samples from kidney or liver transplant recipients were subjected to Dimension RxL HM with a tacrolimus Flex reagent cartilage for the ACMIA method and IMx tacrolimus II for the MEIA method. Results Tacrolimus concentrations measured by the ACMIA method (n = 154) closely correlated with those measured by the MEIA method ( r = 0.84). The Bland-Altman plot using concentration differences between the 2 methods and the average of the 2 methods showed no specific trends. The tacrolimus levels determined by both the MEIA method and the ACMIA method were not influenced by hematocrit levels, but the difference between the 2 methods (ACMIA − MEIA) tended to be larger in low hematocrit samples ( P < .001). Conclusion The ACMIA method used for a tacrolimus assay is precise and has advantages, including the lack of a required pretreatment procedure. Furthermore, it is only slightly influenced by the hematologic or biochemical status of the samples.

Comparison of cyclosporine concentrations in renal transplant recipients using ACMIA and mFPIA methods

Objective: This study investigated the performance and data comparability of a new, relatively specific immunoassay method, affinity column mediated immunoassay (ACMIA) run on the Dimension Xpand-HM, and the established less specific monoclonal fluorescence polarization immunoassay (mFPIA) method on the TDx analyzer (mFPIA/TDx) in determining cyclosporine (CsA) concentrations. Methods: Accuracy and within and between-run precision were tested. Then we measured CsA concentrations of 216 samples obtained from 51 patients and divided the 113 samples from 21 patients with renal transplants into two groups based on sampling time. Results: Accuracy relative to the four weighed-in concentrations ranged from 99% to 104% and from 106% to 117% for ACMIA and mFPIA/TDx, respectively. The mean within-run precision (CV%) for the ACMIA and mFPIA/TDx methods was 4.31% and 2.57%, respectively. The mean recovery for ACMIA and mFPIA/TDx in the between-run study was 104.50% and 111.12%, respectively. The mFPIA/ACMIA ratio (the ratio of the concentration measured by mFPIA/TDx to that measured by ACMIA) of C2–3 (concentrations measured 2–3 h after oral administration) was 118.85%, which was significantly smaller than that (139.12%) of C8–12 (those measured more than 8 h after the administration) at each mean concentration. Conclusions: These results indicate that ACMIA is more accurate than mFPIA/TDx, and the difference in the mFPIA/ACMIA ratio between C2–3 and C8–12 was due to the difference in the relative cross-reactivity with CsA metabolites. Although mFPIA/TDx had an apparent calibration error, both methods had a clinically acceptable within and between-run precision.

Reassessment of cross-reactivity of spironolactone metabolites with four digoxin immunoassays.

Spironolactone and one of its metabolites, canrenone, cross-react with some digoxin immunoassays to result in erroneous serum digoxin concentrations. Recently, additional compounds, 7-alpha-thiomethylspirolactone (7-a-TMS) and 6-beta-hydroxy-7-alpha-thiomethylspirolactone (6-B-OH-7-a-TMS), have been reported to be quantitatively important metabolites of spironolactone. This study was initiated to evaluate the cross-reactivity of these metabolites, canrenone, and spironolactone with four different digoxin immunoassays. Blank serum was spiked with each compound to yield concentrations reported to occur in vivo. Samples were analyzed in duplicate by each of the following immunoassays: fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA); affinity-column-mediated immunoassay (ACMIA); radioimmunoassay (RIA); and enzyme immunoassay (EIA). The 7-a-TMS metabolite cross-reacted with both the RIA and ACMIA methods. Apparent digoxin concentrations were as great as 0.39 ng/ml for this metabolite at the highest concentration evaluated, 600 ng/ml. At the lowest concentrations evaluated with the 7-a-TMS metabolite, 50 ng/ml, apparent digoxin concentrations as high as 0.28 ng/ml were reported. The 6-B-OH-7-a-TMS metabolite did not cross-react to a significant extent with any of immunoassays studied. Canrenone cross-reacted with the ACMIA method at a concentration of 100 ng/ml. The EIA method exhibited no apparent cross-reactivity with any of the compounds, whereas the FPIA method exhibited minimal cross-reactivity. The results of this study indicate that the 7-a-TMS metabolite cross-reacts to a significant extent with some immunoassays; however, this is not true for the 6-B-OH-7-a-TMS metabolite.

Reevaluation of digoxin-encainide interactions using an animal model.

The effects of intravenous encainide on digoxin-induced atrial ectopic tachycardia (AET) were investigated in the rat using 3-channel simultaneous limb-lead electrocardiography. Pentobarbital-anesthetized (35 mg/kg, intraperitoneal) adult male rats were given digoxin subcutaneously, 30 mg/kg. After onset of AET, rats received either saline (0.5 ml/kg) or encainide; 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg/kg intravenously in repeated doses at 15-min intervals. At all doses, encainide converted digoxin-induced AET to ventricular arrhythmias, prolonged recovery time, and increased mortality in comparison to saline-treated animals. An additional group of anesthetized rats was not given digoxin. These animals received encainide (2.0 mg/kg, intravenously) in repeated doses at 15-min interval and developed dose-related increase in the P-R interval only. Blood samples were obtained by cardiac puncture from 12 additional anesthetized, digoxin-treated rats 5 min after the fourth intravenous dose of saline (0.5 ml/kg, n = 6) or encainide (1.0 mg/kg, n = 6). Serum was prepared and analyzed by affinity column-mediated immunoassay. Digoxin levels were the same in both groups. These results suggest that encainide may exacerbate digoxin-induced arrhythmias (proarrhythmic effect) in this species. In view of our findings of digoxin-encainide interactions in the rat, we recommend caution if these drugs are coadministered in humans.

Lack of apparent effect of assay methodology on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin.

The purpose of this study was to determine if serum digoxin concentration data using three different automated immunoassay methods would produce similar pharmacokinetic values in normal volunteer subjects. Area under the curve (AUC), steady-state volume of distribution/bioavailability ratio (Vd/F), terminal elimination rate constant (beta), clearance/bioavailability ratio (CL/F), maximum digoxin concentration (Cmax), minimum digoxin concentration (Cmin), and time of peak (Tp) were evaluated. Ten healthy volunteers received digoxin capsules 0.2 mg daily for 10 days. On day 10, 16 serial blood samples were collected over a 24-h dosing interval and analyzed by radioimmunoassay (RIA) (Concept 4, Micromedic Systems), fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) (TDx, Abbott Laboratories), and affinity column-mediated immunoassay (ACMIA), (aca, duPont Instruments). When comparing RIA and FPIA, the mean of the percent differences for AUC, Vd/F, beta, and CL/F were 9, 4, 10, and 6%, respectively. The mean of the percent differences were 2, 3, 44, and 6%, respectively, when comparing RIA and ACMIA. However, none of these differences were statistically significant. Although a trend toward higher Cmax values by RIA was noted, there was no statistical difference in Cmax, Cmin, and Tp. Orthogonal regression of all serum digoxin concentrations showed that FPIA = 0.76 RIA + 0.19, r = 0.967 (p less than 0.001); and ACMIA = 0.92 RIA + 0.04, r = 0.943 (p less than 0.001). At serum digoxin concentrations less than 1 ng/ml, FPIA overestimated RIA results (p less than 0.005), while ACMIA was approximately equal to the RIA results.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)