Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine最新文献

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.

Background: Voriconazole is a broad-spectrum triazole antifungal agent recommended for invasive fungal diseases, including invasive aspergillosis. Therapeutic drug monitoring via voriconazole target trough concentration is important to ensure efficacy while preventing toxicity. Our aim was to determine the stability of voriconazole as adapted and measured by an immunoassay.

Methods: Plasma from patient samples (n = 45) evaluated by a liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method was compared against an ARK immunoassay method, adapted and optimized on the Abbott Alinity c analyzer. Stability of voriconazole and analytical performance of ARK immunoassay was assessed, including functional sensitivity, limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD), and limit of quantification (LoQ), linearity, and precision.

Results: ARK voriconazole immunoassay was highly correlated (Pearson R = 0.988) to the LC-MS/MS method, with an average bias of 0.09 mg/L (2%). CV at LoQ of 0.5 mg/L was 3.7% while the functional sensitivity was established at 0.05 mg/L. Overall imprecision with liquid quality control material obtained from ARK was 5.0%, 6.3%, and 5.9% at 1 mg/L, 5 mg/L, and 10 mg/L, respectively. Limit of blank and LoD were 0.02 mg/L and 0.05 mg/L, respectively. Voriconazole in lithium heparin plasma separator tube declines over time, with a decrease that is more evident near or above toxic concentrations.

Conclusion: Voriconazole collected in gel separation tubes declines over time, possibly due to absorptive properties. Voriconazole measurements by immunoassay and LC-MS/MS demonstrated acceptable comparability with sufficient level of sensitivity and precision.

Background: In 2021, a new Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology (CKD-EPI) Collaboration equation was introduced that excluded race correction. We set out to compare estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) determined using the creatinine-based CKD-EPI 2009 and 2021 equations and the reclassification of chronic kidney disease (CKD) eGFR staging to explore the potential ramifications of adopting the 2021 equation on reported eGFR and CKD staging.

Methods: We analyzed secondary data previously utilized to determine reference intervals among Black African individuals residing in urban towns in Kenya. Serum creatinine was measured using a standardized modified Jaffé kinetic method on a Beckman AU5800 analyzer. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was estimated using both the 2009 and 2021 CKD-EPI creatinine equations. Classification of CKD based on eGFR was performed using the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) practice guidelines.

Results: Using 533 study samples, the median eGFR was highest when determined using the race-corrected CKD-EPI 2009 equation. The CKD-EPI 2021 equation yielded a median eGFR that was similar to the non-race-corrected CKD-EPI 2009 equation. The race-corrected CKD-EPI 2009 equation classified 93.6% of participants into CKD stage G1 compared with 85.6% by the CKD-EPI 2021 equation. The CKD-EPI 2021 equation classified 14.3% of participants into CKD stage G2 compared to 6.4% by the race-corrected CKD-EPI 2009 equation.

Conclusions: The CKD-EPI 2021 equation gave a comparable eGFR to the non-race-corrected CKD-EPI 2009 equation and its implementation in laboratories reporting eGFR in Kenya will help in identifying patients with an appropriate decrease in renal function.

Historically, xylazine has been utilized in veterinary medicine for decades as an anesthetic and analgesic sedative to facilitate safe handling, diagnostic testing, and surgical procedures in large animals. Currently, xylazine is an emerging threat to human health. It has been detected in the illicit drug supply chain, often as an adulterant. It has been more commonly added to illicit substances, most notably fentanyl, by drugmakers to enhance drug effect. End users are often unaware of its presence. This is alarming given the large number of xylazine-involved overdose deaths while laboratory detections are deficient and reversal agents are absent. Herein, we present the first documented case of xylazine identified via gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry at University of California Davis Health despite a peculiarly mild clinical presentation. We hope to increase awareness of this potentially fatal adulterant that is often missed in evaluation and engender further opportunities to study this ongoing issue.

Background: Transgender care is shifting from academic to nonacademic settings leading to use of common (immunoassay) compared to sophisticated (mass spectrometry) methods to monitor estradiol and testosterone during gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT). The type of assay can influence results and have significant implications for clinical decision making. An evidence gap is present in recommendations regarding the assay needed to monitor GAHT. The present study aimed to summarize current evidence and evaluate immunoassay estradiol and testosterone concentrations in transgender people visiting a nonacademic hospital for GAHT.

Methods: Clinical practice guidelines on GAHT and scientific literature on assay methodologies were screened and summarized. Laboratory and medical data from 252 patients who visited the transgender outpatient clinic of the Maasstad Hospital for GAHT between 2020 and 2022 were retrospectively analyzed.

Results: Our research showed that the most used clinical practice guidelines for GAHT provide hormonal target values without recommending a preferred method. A comprehensive literature search on agreement between immunoassay and mass spectrometry showed substantial heterogeneity in results. Retrospective analysis of our immunoassay measured data in transgender people showed hormonal changes during GAHT that are to be expected from the medication used.

Conclusions: We demonstrate that laboratory monitoring of GAHT in a nonacademic hospital can be done safely by immunoassay in most cases. Only in cases where clinical observation is discordant with the hormonal results do more sophisticated methods need to be deployed. A best practice model was proposed for transgender care in nonacademic hospitals.

Respiratory viral infections are among the most frequent infections experienced worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for testing and currently several tests are available for the detection of a wide range of viruses. These tests vary widely in terms of the number of viral pathogens included, viral markers targeted, regulatory status, and turnaround time to results, as well as their analytical and clinical performance. Given these many variables, selection and interpretation of testing requires thoughtful consideration. The current guidance document is the authors' expert opinion based on the preponderance of available evidence to address key questions related to best practices for laboratory diagnosis of respiratory viral infections including who to test, when to test, and what tests to use. An algorithm is proposed to help laboratories decide on the most appropriate tests to use for the diagnosis of respiratory viral infections.