Affiliations 

  • 1 Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
  • 2 Department of Pharmacology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
  • 3 The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
  • 4 Tianjin First Center Hospital, Tianjin, China
  • 5 Department of Laboratory Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • 6 Department of Pathology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur Drug and Research Laboratory, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 7 Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, USA
  • 8 Roche Diagnostics, Penzberg, Germany
  • 9 Department of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. sailchun@amc.seoul.kr
Ann Lab Med, 2018 Mar;38(2):85-94.
PMID: 29214751 DOI: 10.3343/alm.2018.38.2.85

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The immunosuppressant drugs (ISDs), tacrolimus and cyclosporine, are vital for solid organ transplant patients to prevent rejection. However, toxicity is a concern, and absorption is highly variable across patients; therefore, ISD levels need to be precisely monitored. In the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region, tacrolimus and cyclosporine concentrations are typically measured using immunoassays. The objective of this study was to assess the analytical performance of Roche Elecsystacrolimus and cyclosporinee electrochemiluminescence immunoassays (ECLIAs).

METHODS: This evaluation was performed in seven centers across China, South Korea, and Malaysia. Imprecision (repeatability and reproducibility), assay accuracy, and lot-to-lot reagent variability were tested. The Elecsys ECLIAs were compared with commercially available immunoassays (Architect, Dimension, and Viva-E systems) using whole blood samples from patients with various transplant types (kidney, liver, heart, and bone marrow).

RESULTS: Coefficients of variation for repeatability and reproducibility were ≤5.4% and ≤12.4%, respectively, for the tacrolimus ECLIA, and ≤5.1% and ≤7.3%, respectively, for the cyclosporine ECLIA. Method comparisons of the tacrolimus ECLIA with Architect, Dimension, and Viva-E systems yielded slope values of 1.01, 1.14, and 0.897, respectively. The cyclosporine ECLIA showed even closer agreements with the Architect, Dimension, and Viva-E systems (slope values of 1.04, 1.04, and 1.09, respectively). No major differences were observed among the different transplant types.

CONCLUSIONS: The tacrolimus and cyclosporine ECLIAs demonstrated excellent precision and close agreement with other immunoassays tested. These results show that both assays are suitable for ISD monitoring in an APAC population across a range of different transplant types.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Similar publications