The journal of applied laboratory medicine · 2024
Effect of Extraction Procedure Substitution on Automated Tacrolimus, Sirolimus, and Cyclosporine Assays.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chandras Athanasia, Mendu Damodara R, Kirchhoff Daniel C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: An erroneously high tacrolimus level was reported to a clinician. A root cause analysis investigation failed to determine the cause of the error. It was suspected that the incorrect preanalytical extraction reagent and procedure was used during testing; however, how this would affect the assayed drug concentration was unclear. Here we investigated the effect of the substitution of sirolimus, tacrolimus, and cyclosporine extraction reagents on assayed drug concentration.
METHODS: Tacrolimus, sirolimus, and cyclosporine concentration were measured on the Abbott Architect i2000 analyzer. Each assay requires a preanalytical extraction step, with a distinct reagent. We investigated the effect of the substitution of the extraction reagents and procedure between the 3 assays on the measured drug concentration. Two experiments were performed, one on samples of known drug concentration and one on samples with no drug present.
RESULTS: Substituting cyclosporine and sirolimus extraction procedures increased assayed tacrolimus concentrations from 5.6 to 8.47 (+51.25%) and 8.13 (+45.18%) ng/mL, respectively. Extraction procedure substitutions decreased assayed sirolimus from 13.63 to 4.60 (-66.25%) and 8.07 (-40.79%) ng/mL for cyclosporine and tacrolimus. Cyclosporine concentration increased from 274.60 to 391.30 (+42.50%) ng/mL using sirolimus extraction reagents and to 757.30 (+175.78%) ng/mL using tacrolimus extraction reagents. Cross-reactivity was observed between the tacrolimus assay and sirolimus and cyclosporine extraction reagents.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant changes, both positive and negative, are observed in assayed drug concentration when incorrect extraction procedures are used in the Abbott i2000 tacrolimus, sirolimus, and cyclosporine assays. Preanalytic extraction procedures should be investigated when performing root cause analysis for erroneous therapeutic drug values.
METHODS: Tacrolimus, sirolimus, and cyclosporine concentration were measured on the Abbott Architect i2000 analyzer. Each assay requires a preanalytical extraction step, with a distinct reagent. We investigated the effect of the substitution of the extraction reagents and procedure between the 3 assays on the measured drug concentration. Two experiments were performed, one on samples of known drug concentration and one on samples with no drug present.
RESULTS: Substituting cyclosporine and sirolimus extraction procedures increased assayed tacrolimus concentrations from 5.6 to 8.47 (+51.25%) and 8.13 (+45.18%) ng/mL, respectively. Extraction procedure substitutions decreased assayed sirolimus from 13.63 to 4.60 (-66.25%) and 8.07 (-40.79%) ng/mL for cyclosporine and tacrolimus. Cyclosporine concentration increased from 274.60 to 391.30 (+42.50%) ng/mL using sirolimus extraction reagents and to 757.30 (+175.78%) ng/mL using tacrolimus extraction reagents. Cross-reactivity was observed between the tacrolimus assay and sirolimus and cyclosporine extraction reagents.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant changes, both positive and negative, are observed in assayed drug concentration when incorrect extraction procedures are used in the Abbott i2000 tacrolimus, sirolimus, and cyclosporine assays. Preanalytic extraction procedures should be investigated when performing root cause analysis for erroneous therapeutic drug values.