Comparison of electrochemiluminescence immunoassay and latex agglutination turbidimetric immunoassay for evaluation of everolimus blood concentrations in renal transplant patients

摘要

Summary What is known and objective For analysis of blood concentrations of everolimus, many hospital laboratories use either latex agglutination turbidimetric immunoassay ( LTIA ) or electrochemiluminescence immunoassay ( ECLIA ). However, no studies have compared both immunoassay methods under the same conditions. Accordingly, in this study, we compared everolimus blood concentrations obtained by LTIA and ECLIA in renal transplant patients. Methods Blood samples (n?=?230) from 60 renal transplant patients (19 female and 41 male) were evaluated using both immunoassays. Subsequently, we switched the assay for detection of everolimus blood concentrations from LTIA to ECLIA as a clinical application. Three quality control ( QC ) samples for LTIA were analysed using ECLIA , and 3 QC samples for ECLIA were analysed using LTIA . Results The Deming regression of ECLIA versus LTIA generated the following parameters: slope, 1.0067 and intercept, 1.7489?ng/ mL , in the analysis of 230 samples. Bland‐Altman analysis showed an average positive bias of 1.73?ng/ mL between ECLIA and LTIA . When the clinical apparatus was switched from LTIA to ECLIA , the average everolimus blood concentration assayed by LTIA before switching was 3.57?ng/ mL , whereas that by ECLIA after switching in the same patients taking the same daily dose (mean: 1.43?mg/day) was 5.85?ng/ mL . The QC s assayed using LTIA were lower by an average of 67.3% (range: 55.8%‐79.5%) for ECLIA , and in the same 230 samples from patients, the everolimus blood concentrations assayed by LTIA were lower by an average of 67.4% (range: 37.1%‐114.5%) of ECLIA. What is new and conclusion Analysis of everolimus concentrations by immunoassays with high precision and accuracy is required to ensure long‐term survival of transplant recipients. Although the concentrations of QC s and calibrators of everolimus in LTIA were previously corrected to 70% concentration because of cross‐reactivity with everolimus metabolites, these adjustments may need to be reviewed.