Heliyon · 2023
Comparison of ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) and enzyme-multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT) for quantification of voriconazole plasma concentration from Chinese patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Yu Mingjie, Yang Jun, Xiong Lirong, Zhan Shipeng, Cheng Lin, Chen Yongchuan, Liu Fang
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Voriconazole (VRZ) is the recommended standard treatment for life-threatening invasive aspergillosis. The plasma concentration of VRZ should be determined to optimise treatment results and reduce side effects. This study aimed to compare the correlation and concordance of ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) and enzyme-multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT) to determine VRZ plasma concentration in clinical practice.
METHODS: An isotopically labelled internal standard UPLC-MS/MS method was established, validated, and subsequently applied to determine VRZ concentration. The UPLC-MS/MS method was also compared with a commercial EMIT method regarding results correlation and concordance.
RESULTS: The calibration curve of UPLC-MS/MS was linear from 0.1 to 10 mg/L, the inter- and intra-day relative standard deviations (RSDs), and the stability of quality control samples were less than 15 %, satisfying the Bioanalytical Method Validation Guidelines. A total of 122 plasma samples were collected and analyzed using both methods. UPLC-MS/MS and EMIT showed a high correlation (r = 0.9534), and Bland-Altman analysis indicated a mean absolute bias of 1.035 mg/L and an average bias of 27.56 % between UPLC-MS/MS and EMIT. The paired Wilcoxon test and Bland-Altman analysis revealed poor consistency between the two methods. Furthermore, we compared the effects of different methods in clinical applications. Two threshold values for treatment efficacy (1.0 mg/L) and safety (5.5 mg/L) were established, and considerable discordance was observed between the original EMIT and UPLC-MS/MS results at both thresholds (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, the adjusted EMIT results were not inconsistent with the UPLC-MS/MS results regarding the efficacy (p = 0.125) and safety (p = 1.0) thresholds.
CONCLUSIONS: The isotopically labelled internal standard UPLC-MS/MS method is established and well applied in the clinical setting. A strong correlation but discordance was found between UPLC-MS/MS and EMIT, indicating that switching from UPLC-MS/MS to EMIT was unsuitable. However, the adjusted EMIT results may serve as a reliable surrogate when UPLC-MS/MS results cannot be obtained when necessary.
METHODS: An isotopically labelled internal standard UPLC-MS/MS method was established, validated, and subsequently applied to determine VRZ concentration. The UPLC-MS/MS method was also compared with a commercial EMIT method regarding results correlation and concordance.
RESULTS: The calibration curve of UPLC-MS/MS was linear from 0.1 to 10 mg/L, the inter- and intra-day relative standard deviations (RSDs), and the stability of quality control samples were less than 15 %, satisfying the Bioanalytical Method Validation Guidelines. A total of 122 plasma samples were collected and analyzed using both methods. UPLC-MS/MS and EMIT showed a high correlation (r = 0.9534), and Bland-Altman analysis indicated a mean absolute bias of 1.035 mg/L and an average bias of 27.56 % between UPLC-MS/MS and EMIT. The paired Wilcoxon test and Bland-Altman analysis revealed poor consistency between the two methods. Furthermore, we compared the effects of different methods in clinical applications. Two threshold values for treatment efficacy (1.0 mg/L) and safety (5.5 mg/L) were established, and considerable discordance was observed between the original EMIT and UPLC-MS/MS results at both thresholds (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, the adjusted EMIT results were not inconsistent with the UPLC-MS/MS results regarding the efficacy (p = 0.125) and safety (p = 1.0) thresholds.
CONCLUSIONS: The isotopically labelled internal standard UPLC-MS/MS method is established and well applied in the clinical setting. A strong correlation but discordance was found between UPLC-MS/MS and EMIT, indicating that switching from UPLC-MS/MS to EMIT was unsuitable. However, the adjusted EMIT results may serve as a reliable surrogate when UPLC-MS/MS results cannot be obtained when necessary.