Accessible Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter August 19, 2015

Comparing the effect of isotopically labeled or structural analog internal standards on the performance of a LC-MS/MS method to determine ciclosporin A, everolimus, sirolimus and tacrolimus in whole blood

Henar Valbuena, Maria Shipkova, Sophie-Maria Kliesch, Simon Müller and Eberhard Wieland

Abstract

Background: Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is routinely used for analysis of immunosuppressive drugs. This study investigated whether replacing analog internal standards (ANISs) with isotopically labeled internal standards (ILISs) has an impact on the performance of a LC-MS/MS method for the quantification of tacrolimus (TAC), sirolimus (SIR), ciclosporin A (CsA) and everolimus (EVE) in whole blood.

Methods: Following hemolysis, protein precipitation, and extraction with either ANISs (ascomycin, desmethoxy-rapamycin, CsD), or ILISs (TAC-13C,D2; SIR-13C,D3; CsA-D12; EVE-D4), samples were centrifuged and injected into a LC-MS/MS device equipped with a C18 reversed phase column. The effect of the two ISs on the linearity, precision, accuracy, trueness, matrix effects, and carryover was investigated by using the same patient-, proficiency testing-, and quality control samples. Statistical analysis of agreement between results includes a standard random effects model and Passing-Bablok regression.

Results: Within-day imprecision was <10%, between-day <8%, and trueness 91%–110% for all the analytes with both ISs. No carryover or matrix effects were observed. The median accuracy was −2.1% for CsA, 9.1% for EVE, 12.2% for SIR, and −1.2% for TAC with the ILISs; and −2% for CsA, 9.8% for EVE, 11.4% for SIR, and 0.2% for TAC with the ANISs. Results of patient and proficiency testing samples were not statistically different.

Conclusions: Although ILISs are generally considered superior to ANISs, they may not be always essential. When optimizing a LC-MS/MS method other factors must be also considered.


Corresponding author: Henar Valbuena, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital. Barcelona, Spain, Fax: +34 933868198, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

Henar Valbuena was awarded with an Exchange Programme Fellowship from Fundación José Luis Castaño to complete her scientific education and be able to take part in this project.

Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Research funding: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Jusko WJ, Thomson AW, Fung J, McMaster P, Wong SH, Zylber-Katz E, et al. Consensus document: therapeutic monitoring of tacrolimus (FK-506). Ther Drug Monit 1995;17:606–14. Search in Google Scholar

2. Yatscoff RW, Boeckx R, Holt DW, Kahan BD, LeGatt DF, Sehgal S, et al. Consensus guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring of rapamycin: report of the consensus panel. Ther Drug Monit 1995;17:676–80. Search in Google Scholar

3. Kahan BD, Shaw LM, Holt D, Grevel J, Johnston A. Consensus document: Hawk’s Cay meeting on therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine. Clin Chem 1990;36:1510–6. Search in Google Scholar

4. MacDonald AS. Rapamycin in combination with cyclosporine or tacrolimus in liver, pancreas, and kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc 2003;35:201S–8S. Search in Google Scholar

5. Srinivas TR, Meier-Kriesche H-U. Minimizing immunosuppression, an alternative approach to reducing side effects: objectives and interim result. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3:S101–16. Search in Google Scholar

6. McAlister VC, Gao Z, Peltekian K, Domingues J, Mahalati K, MacDonald AS. Sirolimus-tacrolimus combination immunosuppression. Lancet 2000;355:376–7. Search in Google Scholar

7. Seger C, Tentschert K, Stöggl W, Griesmacher A, Ramsay SL. A rapid HPLC-MS/MS method for the simultaneous quantification of cyclosporine A, tacrolimus, sirolimus and everolimus in human blood samples. Nat Protoc 2009;4:526–34. Search in Google Scholar

8. Grote-Koska D, Czajkowski S, Klauke R, Panten E, Brand K, Schumann G. A candidate reference measurement procedure for Cyclosporine A in whole blood. Accred Qual Assur 2014;19:147–57. Search in Google Scholar

9. Koster RA, Alffenaar J-WC,Greijdanus B, Uges DR. Fast LC-MS/MS analysis of tacrolimus, sirolimus, everolimus and cyclosporin A in dried blood spots and the influence of the hematocrit and immunosuppressant concentration on recovery. Talanta 2013;115:47–54. Search in Google Scholar

10. Annesley TM, McKeown DA, Holt DW, Mussell C, Champarnaud E, Harter L, et al. Standardization of LC-MS for therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus. Clin Chem 2013;59:1630–7. Search in Google Scholar

11. Korecka M, Shaw LM. Review of the newest HPLC methods with mass spectrometry detection for determination of immunosuppressive drugs in clinical practice. Ann Transplant 2009;14:61–72. Search in Google Scholar

12. Buchwald A, Winkler K, Epting T. Validation of an LC-MS/MS method to determine five immunosuppressants with deuterated internal standards including MPA. BMC Clin Pharmacol 2012;12:2. Search in Google Scholar

13. Meinitzer A, Gartner G, Pilz S, Stettin M. Ultra fast liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry routine method for simultaneous determination of cyclosporin A, tacrolimus, sirolimus, and everolimus in whole blood using deuterated internal standards for cyclosporin A and everolimus. Ther Drug Monit 2010;32:61–6. Search in Google Scholar

14. O’Halloran S, Ilett KF. Evaluation of a deuterium-labeled internal standard for the measurement of sirolimus by high-throughput HPLC electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Clin Chem 2008;54:1386–9. Search in Google Scholar

15. Heideloff C, Payto D, Wang S. Comparison of a stable isotope-labeled and an analog internal standard for the quantification of everolimus by a liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry method. Ther Drug Monit 2013;35:246–50. Search in Google Scholar

16. Vogeser M, Seger C. Pitfalls associated with the use of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in the clinical laboratory. Clin Chem 2010;56:1234–44. Search in Google Scholar

17. Stokvis E, Rosing H, Beijnen JH. Stable isotopically labeled internal standards in quantitative bioanalysis using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry: necessity or not? Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 2005;19:401–7. Search in Google Scholar

18. Annesley TM, Clayton L. Simple extraction protocol for analysis of immunosuppressant drugs in whole blood. Clin Chem 2004;50:1845–8. Search in Google Scholar

19. Streit F, Armstrong VW, Oellerich M. Rapid liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry routine method for simultaneous determination of sirolimus, everolimus, tacrolimus, and cyclosporin A in whole blood. Clin Chem 2002;48:955–8. Search in Google Scholar

20. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. 2011; Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2011/08/WC500109686.pdf. Accessed: 19 Mar 2015. Search in Google Scholar

21. Korecka MA, Patel R, Shaw LM. Evaluation of performance of new, isotopically labeled internal standard ([13c2d4]RAD001) for everolimus using a novel high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method. Ther Drug Monit 2011;33:460–3. Search in Google Scholar

22. Annesley TM. Ion suppression in mass spectrometry. Clin Chem 2003;49:1041–4. Search in Google Scholar

23. Taylor PJ, Franklin ME, Graham KS, Pillans PI. A HPLC-mass spectrometric method suitable for the therapeutic drug monitoring of everolimus. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 2007;848:208–14. Search in Google Scholar

24. Carstensen B. Comparing clinical measurement methods a practical guide. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Search in Google Scholar

25. Carstensen B, Simpson J, Gurrin LC. Statistical models for assessing agreement in method comparison studies with replicate measurements. Int J Biostat 2008;4:Article 16. Search in Google Scholar

26. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10. Search in Google Scholar

27. Analytical Services International. Analitical Services International [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bioanalytics.co.uk/index.html. Accessed: 20 Feb 2015. Search in Google Scholar

28. Carstensen B, Gurrin L, Ekstrom C, Figurski M. MethComp: functions for analysis of agreement in method comparison studies. R package version 1.22.2. 2015; Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MethComp. Accessed: 20 Feb 2015. Search in Google Scholar

29. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Viena: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2015. Available from: http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed: 20 Feb 2015. Search in Google Scholar

30. Shaw LM, Annesley TM, Kaplan B, Brayman KL. Analytic requirements for immunosuppressive drugs in clinical trials. Ther Drug Monit 1995;17:577–83. Search in Google Scholar

31. Taylor PJ, Brown SR, Cooper DP, Salm P, Morris MR, Pillans PI, et al. Evaluation of 3 internal standards for the measurement of cyclosporin by HPLC-mass spectrometry. Clin Chem 2005;51:1890–3. Search in Google Scholar

32. Becker S, Thiery J, Ceglarek U. Evaluation of a novel commercial assay for the determination of cyclosporine A, tacrolimus, sirolimus, and everolimus by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometric assay. Ther Drug Monit 2013;35:129–32. Search in Google Scholar

Supplemental Material:

The online version of this article (DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2015-0519) offers supplementary material, available to authorized users.

Received: 2015-6-4
Accepted: 2015-6-30
Published Online: 2015-8-19
Published in Print: 2016-3-1

©2016 by De Gruyter