单试验与传统批量ELISA法监测英夫利昔单抗和阿达木单抗水平及抗药物抗体的比较。

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1515/cclm-2024-1258
Mikel Moneo, Ainhoa Ruiz Del Agua, Begoña Ruiz-Argüello, Noelia Rapun, Daniel Nagore, Rachid El Hamss
{"title":"单试验与传统批量ELISA法监测英夫利昔单抗和阿达木单抗水平及抗药物抗体的比较。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的:比较一种新的即用型单试验免疫分析法CHORUS Promonitor,用于定量血清生物药物水平和抗tnf药物的抗药物抗体,与参考的批量ELISA检测方法Promonitor。方法:采集抗肿瘤坏死因子药物、英夫利昔单抗(IFX)或阿达木单抗(ADL)治疗患者的血液样本。定量测定IFX和ADL水平,以及抗IFX和抗ADL抗体,并在标准ELISA参考试验Promonitor和自动化单试验ELISA试验CHORUS Promonitor之间进行比较。数据分析包括两个测试之间的定性和定量比较。为了进行定性比较,计算总体一致性百分比(OPA)。定量比较采用Passing-Bablok回归分析和Bland-Altman分析。结果:对于IFX和ADL水平,两种方法的定性总体一致性为100 % (Cohen’s系数=1)。抗ifx抗体和抗adl抗体的OPA分别为98.8 %和97.3% %。定量比较表明两种检测方法之间存在很强的相关性:IFX (r=0.97, n=74)、ADL (r=0.95, n=54)、anti-IFX (r=0.93, n=72)和anti-ADL (r=0.97, n=61)。回归分析表明两种方法的药物水平具有良好的可比性。Bland-Altman分析显示,IFX测定的偏倚差异为6 %,ADL测定的偏倚差异为0 %,抗IFX测定的偏倚差异为24 %,抗ADL测定的偏倚差异为14 %。结论:Monotest CHORUS Promonitor是一种可靠的方法,可定量样品中的IFX、ADL、anti-IFX和anti-ADL,其结果与参考的批量ELISA技术相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison between monotest and traditional batch-based ELISA assays for therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab and adalimumab levels and anti-drug antibodies.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
16.20%
发文量
306
审稿时长
3 months
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!
期刊最新文献
Reviewer Acknowledgment. Evaluation of AUTION EYE AI-4510 flow cell morphology analyzer for counting particles in urine. Biological variation of cardiac biomarkers in athletes during an entire sport season. From errors to excellence: the pre-analytical journey to improved quality in diagnostics. A scoping review. The journey to pre-analytical quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1