Comparison between monotest and traditional batch-based ELISA assays for therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab and adalimumab levels and anti-drug antibodies.
Mikel Moneo, Ainhoa Ruiz Del Agua, Begoña Ruiz-Argüello, Noelia Rapun, Daniel Nagore, Rachid El Hamss
{"title":"Comparison between monotest and traditional batch-based ELISA assays for therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab and adalimumab levels and anti-drug antibodies.","authors":"Mikel Moneo, Ainhoa Ruiz Del Agua, Begoña Ruiz-Argüello, Noelia Rapun, Daniel Nagore, Rachid El Hamss","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2024-1258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare a new ready-to-use monotest immunoassay, CHORUS Promonitor, for the quantification of serum biological drug levels and anti-drug antibodies of anti-TNF agents, against the reference batch-based ELISA test, Promonitor.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Blood samples were collected from patients treated with anti-TNF agents, infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADL). IFX and ADL levels, as well as anti-IFX and anti-ADL antibodies were quantified and compared between the standard ELISA reference test, Promonitor, and the automated monotest ELISA assay, CHORUS Promonitor. Data analysis included both qualitative and quantitative comparison between both tests. For the qualitative comparison, overall percent agreement (OPA) was calculated. For the quantitative comparison, Passing-Bablok regression analysis and Bland-Altman analysis were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For IFX and ADL levels, the qualitative overall agreement between methods was 100 % (Cohen's coefficient=1). For anti-IFX and anti-ADL antibodies, OPA was 98.8 % and 97.3 %, respectively. Quantitative comparison indicated a very strong correlation between both assays: IFX (r=0.97, n=74), ADL (r=0.95, n=54), anti-IFX (r=0.93, n=72), and anti-ADL (r=0.97, n=61). The regression analysis determined an excellent comparability of drug levels between methods. Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias difference between assays of 6 % for IFX, 0 % for ADL, 24 % for anti-IFX, and 14 % for anti-ADL.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Monotest CHORUS Promonitor was a reliable assay to quantify IFX, ADL, anti-IFX and anti-ADL in samples with comparable results to those obtained with the reference batch-based ELISA technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":10390,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-1258","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To compare a new ready-to-use monotest immunoassay, CHORUS Promonitor, for the quantification of serum biological drug levels and anti-drug antibodies of anti-TNF agents, against the reference batch-based ELISA test, Promonitor.
Methods: Blood samples were collected from patients treated with anti-TNF agents, infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADL). IFX and ADL levels, as well as anti-IFX and anti-ADL antibodies were quantified and compared between the standard ELISA reference test, Promonitor, and the automated monotest ELISA assay, CHORUS Promonitor. Data analysis included both qualitative and quantitative comparison between both tests. For the qualitative comparison, overall percent agreement (OPA) was calculated. For the quantitative comparison, Passing-Bablok regression analysis and Bland-Altman analysis were used.
Results: For IFX and ADL levels, the qualitative overall agreement between methods was 100 % (Cohen's coefficient=1). For anti-IFX and anti-ADL antibodies, OPA was 98.8 % and 97.3 %, respectively. Quantitative comparison indicated a very strong correlation between both assays: IFX (r=0.97, n=74), ADL (r=0.95, n=54), anti-IFX (r=0.93, n=72), and anti-ADL (r=0.97, n=61). The regression analysis determined an excellent comparability of drug levels between methods. Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias difference between assays of 6 % for IFX, 0 % for ADL, 24 % for anti-IFX, and 14 % for anti-ADL.
Conclusions: Monotest CHORUS Promonitor was a reliable assay to quantify IFX, ADL, anti-IFX and anti-ADL in samples with comparable results to those obtained with the reference batch-based ELISA technique.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) publishes articles on novel teaching and training methods applicable to laboratory medicine. CCLM welcomes contributions on the progress in fundamental and applied research and cutting-edge clinical laboratory medicine. It is one of the leading journals in the field, with an impact factor over 3. CCLM is issued monthly, and it is published in print and electronically.
CCLM is the official journal of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and publishes regularly EFLM recommendations and news. CCLM is the official journal of the National Societies from Austria (ÖGLMKC); Belgium (RBSLM); Germany (DGKL); Hungary (MLDT); Ireland (ACBI); Italy (SIBioC); Portugal (SPML); and Slovenia (SZKK); and it is affiliated to AACB (Australia) and SFBC (France).
Topics:
- clinical biochemistry
- clinical genomics and molecular biology
- clinical haematology and coagulation
- clinical immunology and autoimmunity
- clinical microbiology
- drug monitoring and analysis
- evaluation of diagnostic biomarkers
- disease-oriented topics (cardiovascular disease, cancer diagnostics, diabetes)
- new reagents, instrumentation and technologies
- new methodologies
- reference materials and methods
- reference values and decision limits
- quality and safety in laboratory medicine
- translational laboratory medicine
- clinical metrology
Follow @cclm_degruyter on Twitter!