Dailly E, Fraissinet F, Deslandes G, Bouquié R, Jolliet P. Evaluation of the QMS® Teicoplanin Immunoassay (ThermoFisher Scientific) on Cobas® 8000 System (Roche Diagnostics) and comparison to fluorescence polarization immunoassay for the determination of teicoplanin concentrations in human plasma.
J Clin Lab Anal 2013;
27:96-8. [PMID:
23378010 DOI:
10.1002/jcla.21567]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2012] [Accepted: 11/19/2012] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The performances of the QMS(®) Teicoplanin immunoassay recently developed on Cobas(®) 6000/8000 systems were evaluated and compared to a fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) [Teicoplanin Innofluor(®) Assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Indianapolis, IN)] on FLX analyzer (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL)].
METHODS
The validation was performed according to the Cofrac (French Accreditation Committee) document SH GTA 04. For the comparison, 48 plasma samples were analyzed by FPIA and QMS assays.
RESULTS
The QMS assay is accurate (intra assay and inter assay inaccuracy ≤ 2.4%) and precise (intra assay and inter assay imprecision ≤ 10.2%). A linear relationship [QMS = 1.0319 × FPIA - 2.8518, r(2) = 0.9246 (P < 0.001)] between FPIA and QMS was found. In the Bland-Altman plots, no systematic bias was found even if QMS results trends to be lower (mean of the ratio QMS concentration/FPIA concentration = 0.91).
CONCLUSION
These results between QMS and FPIA are consistent, which indicates that QMS(®) Teicoplanin immunoassay on Cobas(®) 8000 System is an alternative to FPIA.
Collapse