TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of EMIT and FPIA methods for the detection of cyclosporin A blood levels
T2 - Does impaired liver function make a difference?
AU - Witzke, O.
AU - Heemann, U.
AU - Thesing, A.
AU - Wolfhard, U.
AU - Erhard, J.
AU - Philipp, T.
AU - Michel, M. C.
N1 - Funding Information:
Acknowledgement This work was supported, in part, by grants from Abbott and Behring-Syva.
PY - 1997
Y1 - 1997
N2 - Objective: Apparent cyclosporin A (CSA) blood levels, as determined by fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) and enzyme-multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT), were compared in CSA-treated patients with various degrees of liver dysfunction. Methods: FPIA and EMIT were performed in parallel according to test manufacturer instructions in blood from kidney (n = 82), liver (n = 96) and heart transplant (n = 20) patients. Results: The precision of both techniques was greatest in patients with the highest blood levels, and at each blood level greater for the FPIA than for the EMIT. Apparent CSA blood levels, as determined by EMIT, were typically approximately 70% of those determined by FPIA, indicating greater cross-reaction of the antibody in the FPIA with CSA metabolites. However, the ratio of values determined with EMIT and FPIA was very similar in kidney, liver and heart transplant patients. Among liver transplant patients it was also very similar in those without major alterations of hepatic function and in those with impaired excretory (increased bilirubin and γGT) or synthetic (i.e., reduced thromboplastin time) function. Extended storage of blood samples for up to 10 days did not affect apparent CSA blood level estimates by EMIT in a clinically relevant manner. Conclusions: We conclude that the greater specificity of the antibody in the EMIT for the CSA parent compound does not translate into a clinically relevant advantage for CSA monitoring.
AB - Objective: Apparent cyclosporin A (CSA) blood levels, as determined by fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) and enzyme-multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT), were compared in CSA-treated patients with various degrees of liver dysfunction. Methods: FPIA and EMIT were performed in parallel according to test manufacturer instructions in blood from kidney (n = 82), liver (n = 96) and heart transplant (n = 20) patients. Results: The precision of both techniques was greatest in patients with the highest blood levels, and at each blood level greater for the FPIA than for the EMIT. Apparent CSA blood levels, as determined by EMIT, were typically approximately 70% of those determined by FPIA, indicating greater cross-reaction of the antibody in the FPIA with CSA metabolites. However, the ratio of values determined with EMIT and FPIA was very similar in kidney, liver and heart transplant patients. Among liver transplant patients it was also very similar in those without major alterations of hepatic function and in those with impaired excretory (increased bilirubin and γGT) or synthetic (i.e., reduced thromboplastin time) function. Extended storage of blood samples for up to 10 days did not affect apparent CSA blood level estimates by EMIT in a clinically relevant manner. Conclusions: We conclude that the greater specificity of the antibody in the EMIT for the CSA parent compound does not translate into a clinically relevant advantage for CSA monitoring.
KW - Cyclosporin A
KW - Drug monitoring
KW - Liver dysfunction
KW - Transplantation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030757002&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s002280050311
DO - 10.1007/s002280050311
M3 - Article
C2 - 9272414
AN - SCOPUS:0030757002
SN - 0031-6970
VL - 52
SP - 413
EP - 416
JO - European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
JF - European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
IS - 5
ER -