Comparison of different cyclosporine immunoassays to monitor C0 and C2 blood levels from kidney transplant recipients

Not simply overestimation

Dario Cattaneo, Stefania Zenoni, Stefano Murgia, Simona Merlini, Sara Baldelli, Norberto Perico, Eliana Gotti, Cosimo Ottomano, Alberto Crippa, Giuseppe Remuzzi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Immunoassays used for the measurement of cyclosporine (CsA) usually show cross-reactivity for CsA metabolites, usually resulting in unacceptable bias. Methods: To assess the performance of different immunoassays, CsA concentrations were analyzed in 132 samples using ACMIA, EMIT-VIVA, CEDIA-PLUS, and HPLC. Samples were collected from kidney transplant patients monitored with the traditional blood CsA trough level (C0, n=73) and the new sampling at 2-h post CsA dosing (C2, n=59). Results: Overall, the correlations between HPLC and other methods were good (r values ranging from 0.85 to 0.97). The use of C2 concentrations to monitor CsA exposure were associated with an overall better performance of all the immunoassays as compared with C0 values. However, none of the immunoassays agreed with the guidelines proposed in the Lake Louis Consensus Conference. Of note, the CEDIA-PLUS was the only that provided a linear relationship with HPLC for both sampling times. A false positive case associated with ACMIA was also documented in blood samples from a patient withdrawn from CsA for 1 month. Conclusion: These data suggest that the performance of some of the most used immunoassays is not satisfactory, eventually leading to incorrect therapeutic decision guided by erroneous CsA monitoring.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)153-164
Number of pages12
JournalClinica Chimica Acta
Volume355
Issue number1-2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2005

Fingerprint

Transplants
Immunoassay
Cyclosporine
Blood
Sampling
Kidney
Metabolites
High Pressure Liquid Chromatography
Lakes
Monitoring
Transplant Recipients
Guidelines

Keywords

  • Cyclosporine
  • HPLC
  • Immunoassays
  • Methods comparison

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry
  • Clinical Biochemistry

Cite this

Comparison of different cyclosporine immunoassays to monitor C0 and C2 blood levels from kidney transplant recipients : Not simply overestimation. / Cattaneo, Dario; Zenoni, Stefania; Murgia, Stefano; Merlini, Simona; Baldelli, Sara; Perico, Norberto; Gotti, Eliana; Ottomano, Cosimo; Crippa, Alberto; Remuzzi, Giuseppe.

In: Clinica Chimica Acta, Vol. 355, No. 1-2, 05.2005, p. 153-164.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cattaneo, Dario ; Zenoni, Stefania ; Murgia, Stefano ; Merlini, Simona ; Baldelli, Sara ; Perico, Norberto ; Gotti, Eliana ; Ottomano, Cosimo ; Crippa, Alberto ; Remuzzi, Giuseppe. / Comparison of different cyclosporine immunoassays to monitor C0 and C2 blood levels from kidney transplant recipients : Not simply overestimation. In: Clinica Chimica Acta. 2005 ; Vol. 355, No. 1-2. pp. 153-164.
@article{b61d62898c2542ada225e92d5b32cf59,
title = "Comparison of different cyclosporine immunoassays to monitor C0 and C2 blood levels from kidney transplant recipients: Not simply overestimation",
abstract = "Background: Immunoassays used for the measurement of cyclosporine (CsA) usually show cross-reactivity for CsA metabolites, usually resulting in unacceptable bias. Methods: To assess the performance of different immunoassays, CsA concentrations were analyzed in 132 samples using ACMIA, EMIT-VIVA, CEDIA-PLUS, and HPLC. Samples were collected from kidney transplant patients monitored with the traditional blood CsA trough level (C0, n=73) and the new sampling at 2-h post CsA dosing (C2, n=59). Results: Overall, the correlations between HPLC and other methods were good (r values ranging from 0.85 to 0.97). The use of C2 concentrations to monitor CsA exposure were associated with an overall better performance of all the immunoassays as compared with C0 values. However, none of the immunoassays agreed with the guidelines proposed in the Lake Louis Consensus Conference. Of note, the CEDIA-PLUS was the only that provided a linear relationship with HPLC for both sampling times. A false positive case associated with ACMIA was also documented in blood samples from a patient withdrawn from CsA for 1 month. Conclusion: These data suggest that the performance of some of the most used immunoassays is not satisfactory, eventually leading to incorrect therapeutic decision guided by erroneous CsA monitoring.",
keywords = "Cyclosporine, HPLC, Immunoassays, Methods comparison",
author = "Dario Cattaneo and Stefania Zenoni and Stefano Murgia and Simona Merlini and Sara Baldelli and Norberto Perico and Eliana Gotti and Cosimo Ottomano and Alberto Crippa and Giuseppe Remuzzi",
year = "2005",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.cccn.2004.12.018",
language = "English",
volume = "355",
pages = "153--164",
journal = "Clinica Chimica Acta",
issn = "0009-8981",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1-2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of different cyclosporine immunoassays to monitor C0 and C2 blood levels from kidney transplant recipients

T2 - Not simply overestimation

AU - Cattaneo, Dario

AU - Zenoni, Stefania

AU - Murgia, Stefano

AU - Merlini, Simona

AU - Baldelli, Sara

AU - Perico, Norberto

AU - Gotti, Eliana

AU - Ottomano, Cosimo

AU - Crippa, Alberto

AU - Remuzzi, Giuseppe

PY - 2005/5

Y1 - 2005/5

N2 - Background: Immunoassays used for the measurement of cyclosporine (CsA) usually show cross-reactivity for CsA metabolites, usually resulting in unacceptable bias. Methods: To assess the performance of different immunoassays, CsA concentrations were analyzed in 132 samples using ACMIA, EMIT-VIVA, CEDIA-PLUS, and HPLC. Samples were collected from kidney transplant patients monitored with the traditional blood CsA trough level (C0, n=73) and the new sampling at 2-h post CsA dosing (C2, n=59). Results: Overall, the correlations between HPLC and other methods were good (r values ranging from 0.85 to 0.97). The use of C2 concentrations to monitor CsA exposure were associated with an overall better performance of all the immunoassays as compared with C0 values. However, none of the immunoassays agreed with the guidelines proposed in the Lake Louis Consensus Conference. Of note, the CEDIA-PLUS was the only that provided a linear relationship with HPLC for both sampling times. A false positive case associated with ACMIA was also documented in blood samples from a patient withdrawn from CsA for 1 month. Conclusion: These data suggest that the performance of some of the most used immunoassays is not satisfactory, eventually leading to incorrect therapeutic decision guided by erroneous CsA monitoring.

AB - Background: Immunoassays used for the measurement of cyclosporine (CsA) usually show cross-reactivity for CsA metabolites, usually resulting in unacceptable bias. Methods: To assess the performance of different immunoassays, CsA concentrations were analyzed in 132 samples using ACMIA, EMIT-VIVA, CEDIA-PLUS, and HPLC. Samples were collected from kidney transplant patients monitored with the traditional blood CsA trough level (C0, n=73) and the new sampling at 2-h post CsA dosing (C2, n=59). Results: Overall, the correlations between HPLC and other methods were good (r values ranging from 0.85 to 0.97). The use of C2 concentrations to monitor CsA exposure were associated with an overall better performance of all the immunoassays as compared with C0 values. However, none of the immunoassays agreed with the guidelines proposed in the Lake Louis Consensus Conference. Of note, the CEDIA-PLUS was the only that provided a linear relationship with HPLC for both sampling times. A false positive case associated with ACMIA was also documented in blood samples from a patient withdrawn from CsA for 1 month. Conclusion: These data suggest that the performance of some of the most used immunoassays is not satisfactory, eventually leading to incorrect therapeutic decision guided by erroneous CsA monitoring.

KW - Cyclosporine

KW - HPLC

KW - Immunoassays

KW - Methods comparison

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=20144389181&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=20144389181&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cccn.2004.12.018

DO - 10.1016/j.cccn.2004.12.018

M3 - Article

VL - 355

SP - 153

EP - 164

JO - Clinica Chimica Acta

JF - Clinica Chimica Acta

SN - 0009-8981

IS - 1-2

ER -