Lee EJ, Kim HK, Ahn S, Lee W, Kim HS, Chun S, Min WK. Accuracy evaluation of automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for everolimus and sirolimus compared to liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.
J Clin Lab Anal 2019;
33:e22941. [PMID:
31197901 PMCID:
PMC6757180 DOI:
10.1002/jcla.22941]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2019] [Revised: 05/03/2019] [Accepted: 05/16/2019] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Background
We evaluated the analytical performance of a newly developed electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for everolimus and sirolimus compared to that of liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS).
Methods
According to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines, the analytical performance including precision, recovery, linearity, and carryover was evaluated. For correlation evaluation, the results of Elecsys® analysis of everolimus and sirolimus were compared with those of LC‐MS/MS using 120 samples from patients treated with everolimus or sirolimus.
Results
The within‐run and total imprecision values were as follows: 2.3%‐4.5% and 4.5%‐6.4% for the everolimus assay; 3.3%‐4.8% and 4.7%‐8.1% for the sirolimus assay, respectively. The measured concentration was linear over the range of 0.718‐27.585 ng/mL for everolimus analysis and 0.789‐26.880 ng/mL for sirolimus analysis (all R2 > 0.99). Recovery was 93.5%‐105.5% for the everolimus assay and 99.2%‐109.1% for the sirolimus assay (except lowest levels). Carryover was −1.09% for the everolimus assay and −0.12% for the sirolimus assay. The results of the two chemiluminescence immunoassays showed acceptable correlations with those of LC‐MS/MS (R = 0.9585 and R = 0.9799, respectively). The two immunoassays showed slightly proportional biases compared to LC‐MS/MS.
Conclusion
Elecsys® Everolimus and Sirolimus assays showed acceptable analytical performance in precision, linearity, and correlation compared to LC‐MS/MS These methods can be adopted in the clinical laboratory for rapid therapeutic drug monitoring of patients who require treatment with immunosuppressants.
Collapse