Alkaline phosphatase ınterference in an unconjugated estriol assay causing a false positive Down syndrome screening result

Objective

Decreased unconjugated estriol (uE3) concentrations increase calculated risk of Down syndrome. Therefore, falsely low uE3, due to assay interference, have the potential to cause false-positive screening results. Here we present a 35 years old woman with a pregnancy of 17+2 weeks.

Materials and methods

Second-trimester screening test was performed on the UniCelDxI 800 (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA) analyzer and her uE3 level was 0.21 ng/mL (0.21 MoM). Risk calculated for DS was 1/8. Measurements were repeated on IMMULITE 2000 XPi (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., USA). uE3 result was 0.614 ng/mL (0.97 MoM). The risk for DS was negative with this system. There was no sign of fetal anomaly on three-dimensional ultrasound examination and cell-free fetal DNA screening test. We suspected assay interference for uE3.

Results

Serial dilutions of serum samples revealed nonlinearity. 36.3% increase was observed with heterophile antibody blocking tubes. The post-polyethylene glycol treatment resulted approximately the same uE3 levels as IMMULITE system. Addition of alkaline phosphatase Scavenger to serum increased the result by 90% showing that falsely low E3 result was due to an interferent reacting on assay medium.

Conclusion

Laboratories should be aware that falsely low uE3 results due to interference may be obtained.

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.

Heterophilic antibody interference in immunometric assays

Immunometric assays are inherently vulnerable to interference from heterophilic antibodies, endogenous antibodies that bind assay antibodies. The consequences of such interference can be devastating. In this review, we discuss strategies that reduce the damage caused by heterophilic antibodies. Clinicians should only order blood tests that are indicated for the patient and clinical setting at hand, and have the confidence to question laboratory results discordant with the clinical picture. Laboratorians should familiarize themselves with the vulnerability of the assays they offer, and be able to perform and interpret adequate confirmatory measures correctly. When designing immunoassays, the immunoassay industry should invest the necessary resources in specific protective measures against heterophilic antibody interference. Examples include using antibody fragments and the addition of effective blockers to assay reagents. The increasing use of modified monoclonal mouse antibodies both in therapy and diagnostics could present a particular challenge in the future.

Reactivity of human IgM binding murine monoclonal 6B6C1 (IgG2a) with other murine monoclonal IgG antibodies

BACKGROUND

Approximately 6% of sera positive in a dengue virus IgM-capture enzyme immunoassay (EIA) represent false-positives due to interaction between IgM and horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled monoclonal antibody (MAb) 6B6C1 (IgG2a). To better understand this interaction, we assessed the reactivity of captured IgM from these sera with other HRP-labeled MAbs.

METHODS

Fifty dengue IgM false-positive sera (recognizing 6B6C1) were evaluated for IgM reactivity with the HRP-labeled MAbs H3A4 (IgG2a), 53.8 (IgG2b), and IL-A2 (IgG1). The sera were also tested in an EIA for human anti-mouse antibody (HAMA).

RESULTS

Forty-three sera (86%) reacted with IgG2a MAb (H3A4). Most (31/43 = 72%) of these sera recognizing 6B6C1 and H3A4 also recognized the IgG2 MAb and/or the IgG1 MAb. In contrast, HAMA was increased in only 9 of 50 (18%) sera reacting with 6B6C1.

CONCLUSIONS

IgM from most sera-binding IgG2a MAb 6B6C1 also binds another IgG2a MAb, suggesting that IgM-6B6C1 reactivity is not idiotype specific. In many cases, IgM recognizing 6B6C1 also binds MAbs of other IgG subclasses, but is negative in a HAMA assay. These findings indicate that samples positive in IgM-capture EIAs utilizing conjugated MAbs should always be retested in the absence of antigen to identify false-positive reactivity caused by direct IgM-MAb interaction.

Immunoassay for quantifying squamous cell carcinoma antigen in serum

BACKGROUND

Although the benefits of quantifying serum squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCCa) have been reported, SCCa reagents were no longer available in the US by the late 1990s. Because SCCa quantification still has demonstrated clinical utility, we developed and validated a microtiter plate-based ELISA for measuring SCCa in serum.

METHODS

We coated microtiter strips overnight with capture anti-SCCa monoclonal antibody, washed the wells, added blocking buffer, and lyophilized the strips. For detection, we used a biotinylated anti-SCCa detection antibody, streptavidin/horseradish peroxidase conjugate, and tetramethylbenzidine/H(2)O(2) substrate. A novel blocking reagent against human antimouse antibodies (HAMA) was evaluated. A reference interval was established with sera from healthy individuals and was confirmed in smokers.

RESULTS

The assay was linear to 40 microg/L SCCa (slope, 1.00; y intercept, 0.695; R(2), 0.996) with a detection limit of 0.3 microg/L. The intraassay imprecision results [mean (CV)] were 2.5 microg/L (3.4%), 18.0 microg/L (3.0%), and 30.7 microg/L (2.4%); interassay imprecision results were 2.0 microg/L (9.9%), 20.0 microg/L (7.6%), and 36.3 microg/L (3.5%). A correlation analysis against an established automated assay generated a slope of 0.976 and a y intercept of -0.193 microg/L (r(2) = 0.916). An upper reference limit of 2.1 microg/L SCCa was established at 95% confidence level, with no difference observed in smokers. No correlation between SCCa concentration and age was observed (r(2) = 0.0003). At a blocking reagent concentration of 5 mg/L, HAMA interference was eliminated in 3 samples known to produce falsely increased SCCa results.

CONCLUSIONS

This SCCa ELISA demonstrates acceptable performance characteristics for quantifying serum SCCa and is effective in eliminating HAMA interference.

Prevention of assay interference in infectious-disease serology tests done on the liaison platform

Immunoassay interference causing unexpected reactive results in magnetic-microparticle-based assays was detected. A systematic evaluation of Liaison Epstein-Barr virus immunoglobulin M showed that 5% of the positive results (0.4% of tested samples) could be explained by such interference. Adding chemical blocking reagents (polyvinylpyrrolidone and polyvinyl alcohol) to the assay buffers partially prevented this phenomenon.

Detection of human antibodies generated against therapeutic antibodies used in tumor therapy

Application of monoclonal antibodies (MAb) for therapeutic purpose may induce the formation of human antibodies directed against the immunogenic epitopes, which are presented on the therapeutic MAb. Formation of such human antibodies mostly is an undesired side effect, but in the case of newly developed immunotherapeutic tumor treatment strategies it represents the underlying therapeutic effect. Especially the formation of so-called "internal image" antibodies, which are directed against the antigen-combining site (paratope) of the therapeutic antibody, is supposed to evoke specific immune responses against tumor antigens mediated via idiotype-anti-idiotype interactions within the immunoregulatory network. For the monitoring of the immune response after antibody application, the newly formed human antibodies can be measured with immunoassay procedures involving the applied therapeutic antibody as test antibody. Because the original antigen is directed against the therapeutic antibody and inhibits the binding of "internal image" antibodies, a special assay design is needed to avoid interferences with samples containing the antigen. We describe an immunoassay procedure that allows the correct quantification of antiidiotypic antibodies including "internal image" antibodies that are not affected by the original antigen or other serum components that may interact with the therapeutic antibody.

Interferences in hormone immunoassays

Despite the numerous potential interferences that were discussed in this article, immunoassays, in general, are robust measurement systems. There is no practical way to identify specimens a priori that are likely to have immunoassay interference. Therefore, laboratories must rely on communication from clinicians to identify suspicious test values that may be caused by assay interference. After laboratories are alerted, multiple investigations can be undertaken. The common causes of immunoassay interferences (see Box I) are dependent on the analytic format. Competitive assays are most likely to have problems with cross-reactivity, whereas immunometric assays most often have problems with heterophile antibodies. The simple steps to test for dilutional linearity, spiked recovery, heterophile antibody blocking,and testing with alternate technology can help in the evaluations of cases that are suspected to have assay interference.

Screening for interference in immunoassays

BACKGROUND

The presence of interfering substances in patient samples submitted for immunoassay cannot be reliably anticipated. We therefore evaluated three interference screening techniques and estimated the prevalence of interfering substances as defined by positive outcomes with these protocols.

METHODS

We evaluated 160 samples for the presence of substances that may interfere with four immunoassays (40 samples for each): thyroid-stimulating hormone, prostate-specific antigen, beta-human chorionic gonadotropin, and cortisol. Interference was defined by nonlinear responses with serial dilution, discrepant results after pretreatment with heterophile blocking reagent (HBR), and positive reactions on a mouse-antibody-negative control reaction (Tandem ICON ImmunoConcentration HCG). Criteria for declaring significant discrepant results were based on a Z-score computed using the assay CV. The McNemar test was used to compare the prevalence of discrepancies across the three screening techniques. The association between type of immunoassay and prevalence of discrepant results was determined by a modified Pearson chi(2) statistic.

RESULTS

Five of the 160 samples [3.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0-7.1%] screened positive with the ICON. Seventy-two of the 148 samples with informative serial dilutions (48.6%; 95% CI, 40.4-57.0%) had at least one discrepant result at higher dilutions. After pretreatment with HBR, 53 of the 140 samples (38%; 95% CI, 29.8-46%) were discrepant. Only 48 of the 140 samples with informative measurements for all three screening techniques (34%; 95% CI, 26-43%) were negative by all three. The prevalence of positive screens varied significantly by type of immunoassay (P <0.0001) for both HBR and serial dilution. Only 3% (0.8-7%) of the samples tested with HBR showed a change from normal to abnormal or the reverse after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing a protocol based on any of these three techniques into the immunochemistry laboratory to prescreen for interfering substances is not warranted. The evaluation of specimens for the presence of interfering anti-animal antibodies should be reserved for cases in which clinical history or suspicious results indicate the need.

Towards a better understanding of heterophile (and the like) antibody interference with modern immunoassays

BACKGROUND

Heterophile antibodies interfere with immunoassays. Understanding the nature and characteristics of these antibodies provides a format for better identifying and removing them. Growing evidence suggests many of these antibodies are natural antibodies. Very large number of tests are being performed with automated analyzers and there has been a problem with misdiagnosis due to interference. New commercial agents for blocking heterophile antibodies have been developed.

METHODS

Review of the immunology and methodological literature with critical interpretation of the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterophile antibodies consist of natural antibodies and autoantibodies. Both types are usually weak antibodies that interfere by noncompetitive mechanisms. Based on very strong circumstantial evidence, we propose that natural antibodies account for most interference with automated immunoassays. In terms of false positive results, the interference rate is very low, about 99.95% accuracy. Specific blocking agents have some theoretical advantage over nonspecific blocking agents, but in actual practice, the very low false positive frequency makes it difficult if not impossible to statistically compare blocking agents or other assay modifications with adequate statistical power. In the absence of a technique that lends itself to automation for removing all immunoglobulins, it appears that infrequent heterophile interference cannot be avoided.

Immunometric Assay Interference

Background: The primary aim of the study was to reduce interference in an in-house two-site, two-step immunometric assay.

Methods: In the running laboratory routine, 11 261 samples were tested with a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assay with bovine immunoglobulin but no murine immunoglobulins in the buffer, in parallel to our routine CEA assay, using 15 mg/L heat-treated nonspecific murine immunoglobulin (MAK33) in the buffer and with the Fc fragments removed from the capture antibody.

Results: The frequency of interference was estimated to be 4.0% (95% confidence interval, 3.3–4.7%). The addition of 15 mg/L native MAK33 had little effect (frequency, 3.9%; 95% confidence interval, 3.2–4.6%), whereas adding 15 mg/L heat-treated MAK33 reduced interference to 0.86% (0.61–1.12%), and adding 50 mg/L reduced it further to 0.06% (0–0.13%). Removing the Fc fragments by itself reduced interference to 0.10% (0.02–0.19%). There were no statistically significant differences for age (P &lt;0.23) or gender (P &lt;0.40) between patients with interference (n = 210) and a randomly selected interference-negative control group (n = 186). Interference was not constant in patients: 15 of 25 individuals positive for interference and with four or more samples screened for interference had an interference-negative sample either before or after the peak of interference.

Conclusions: In a two-site, two-step immunometric assay using mouse monoclonal antibodies, use of heat-treated nonspecific murine immunoglobulin in the buffer or removal of the Fc fragment from the capture antibody could improve performance.

Multiplex analysis of heterophil antibodies in patients with indeterminate HIV immunoassay results

We hypothesized that heterophil antibodies reactive with animal proteins used in blot preparation caused nonspecific staining (NSS) on HIV Western blot (WB) studies, causing indeterminate results. We analyzed samples showing NSS on HIV WB using a multiplexed immunoassay to simultaneously measure IgG antibodies to animal IgG (bovine, goat, sheep, mouse) and bovine serum albumin. Heterophil antibodies reactive with IgG from several animal species were detected in 23 (49%) of 47 samples showing NSS on HIV WB; 15 positive samples demonstrated antibodies to all 5 antigens. Similar IgG heterophil antibodies were detected in only 2 (8%) of 24 control samples. Of the HIV WB samples with a positive HIV-1 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) result at the time of WB testing (11/47), heterophil antibodies were found in 8 (73%) of 11. Preabsorption with bovine, goat, and sheep IgG removed heterophil antibodies detected by the multiplexed assay and, in some cases, eliminated reactivity in ELISA and WB testing. Heterophil antibodies are associated with indeterminate HIV immunoassay results and are an important cause of false-positive HIV ELISA results. Multiplexed immunoassays provide a powerful tool for screening patients for heterophil antibodies and resolving possible false-positive results.

Determination of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) in serum by a highly sensitive enzyme amplified lanthanide luminescence immunoassay

OBJECTIVES

To develop a highly sensitive enzyme amplified lanthanide luminescence (EALL) immunoassay for tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha).

METHODS

The method is based on the use of two monoclonal antibodies against TNF-alpha, one "capture" antibody and one labeled with biotin, in a "sandwich type" assay format. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) conjugated to an antibiotin-polyclonal antibody is used as the enzyme label. ALP cleaves phosphate from diflunisal phosphate (DIFP) to produce diflunisal (DIF). The detection system is based on the combination of enzymatic amplification introduced by ALP and the formation of a highly fluorescent terbium complex that can be monitored by time resolved or conventional fluorimetry.

RESULTS

By using 50 microL of sample, the dynamic range of the assay extends up to 2000 ng/L of TNF-alpha, with a detection limit of 1 ng/L, within-run CVs ranging from 3 to 15% and recoveries of 97 +/- 2%. By using 100 microL of sample the dynamic range of the assay extends up to 1000 ng/L of TNF-alpha with a detection limit of 0.2 ng/L, recoveries of 94 +/- 13%, within-run CVs ranging from 2 to 6.5% and between-run CVs ranging from 5 to 15%, in a total incubation time of 3h. No interference by the presence of other cytokines (IL-1beta IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IFN-gamma) or by rheumatoid factors has been observed. The results obtained by the proposed method and by a commercially available kit (Medgenix TNF-alpha EASIA) correlated well (n = 26, r = 0.934).

CONCLUSION

The proposed method is highly sensitive, simple and rapid and can reliably measure TNF-alpha in the ng range in biological specimens.