Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter / Tate, Jillian R.

12 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 3.432

CiteScore 2016: 2.21

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 1.000
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.112

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 42, Issue 8 (Aug 2004)

Issues

Comparison of serum digoxin concentration monitoring by fluorescence polarization immunoassay on the TDxFLx® and dry chemistry enzyme immunoassay on the Vitros 950

Bogdan Solnica
  • Diagnostic Division, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Jagiellonian University, Collegium Medicum, Krakow, Poland
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2011-09-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2004.156

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare the results of digoxin assays performed using fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) on the TDxFLx® and a dry chemistry enzyme immunoassay (EIA) on the Vitros 950. Within-run CV amounted to 8.52–10.49% for FPIA and 2.47–5.39% for EIA. Between-run CV amounted to 6.41–8.97% for FPIA and 3.40–5.04% for EIA. Analytical bias ranged from 2.57–4.0% for FPIA and from 9.86–11.9% for EIA. In comparative studies the correlation coefficient was 0.878; Deming regression analysis yielded a slope of 1.057 (95% CI: 0.573 to 1.541) and intercept of 0.078 (95% CI: –0.391 to 0.547), and the Passing-Bablok agreement test yielded a slope of 1.111 (95% CI: 0.988 to 1.212) and intercept of 0.094 (95% CI: –0.018 to 0.182). The mean digoxin concentration in patients’ sera measured by EIA was significantly higher than that measured by FPIA (1.347 vs. 1.196 ng/ml, p < 0.02). The mean absolute difference between results amounted to 0.146 ng/ml (95% CI: 0.0261 to 0.266). In comparison to EIA, FPIA yielded a higher number of subtherapeutic concentrations < 0.5 ng/ml (29.7% vs. 21.8%) and a lower number of digoxin concentrations > 1.2 ng/ml (25.7% vs. 35.6%). These discrepancies occurred in approximately 10% of samples. The obtained results showed different analytical performance and method-dependent differences in the distribution of results. This indicates the necessity to harmonize digoxin immunoassays if two different analytical systems are used in the same clinical setting.

Keywords: digoxin; dry chemistry; enzyme immunoassay; fluorescence polarization immunoassay; therapeutic drug monitoring

References

  • 1

    Hallworth M, Capps N. Analytical aspects. In: Hallworth M, Capps N. Therapeutic drug monitoring & clinical biochemistry. London: ACB Venture Publications, 1993:95–120.Google Scholar

  • 2

    Test Methodology Vitros DGXN Slides, Part No. MP2-114. In: Vitros test methodology manual. Rochester, NY: Johnson & Johnson Clinical Diagnostics, 1996.Google Scholar

  • 3

    Passing H, Bablok W. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1983; 21:709–20.Google Scholar

  • 4

    Stöckl D, Dewitte K, Thienpont LM. Validity of linear regression in method comparison studies: is it limited by the statistical model or the quality of the analytical input data? Clin Chem 1998; 44:2340–6.Google Scholar

  • 5

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

  • 6

    Rathore SS, Curtis JP, Wang Y, Bristow MR, Krumholz HM. Association of serum digoxin concentration and outcomes in patients with heart failure. J Am Med Assoc 2003; 289:871–8.Google Scholar

  • 7

    Steele BW, Wang E, Palomski GE, Klee GG, Elin RJ, Soldin SJ, et al. An evaluation of analytic goals for assays of drugs. A College of American Pathologists Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Survey Study. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2001; 125:729–35.Google Scholar

  • 8

    Valdes R Jr, Jortani SA, Gheorghiade M. Standards of laboratory practice: cardiac drug monitoring. Clin Chem 1998; 44:1096–109.Google Scholar

  • 9

    Frezzotti A, Giordano G, Margarucci Gambini AM. Analytical performance of a monoclonal digoxin assay by dry chemistry on the Vitros 950. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1999; 59:431–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 10

    De BK, Booth DD, Magee PJ, Moore ML, Preuss TM, Rose TA, Roberts WL. Analytic performance of two automated nonpretreatment digoxin immunoassays. Ther Drug Monit 1999; 21:123–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 11

    Ferreri LF, Raisys VA, Opheim KE. Analysis of digoxin concentrations in serum by fluorescence polarization immunoassay: an evaluation. J Anal Toxicol 1984; 8:138–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 12

    Oeltgen PR, Shank WA Jr, Blouin RA, Clark T. Clinical evaluation of the Abbott TDx fluorescence polarization immunoassay analyzer. Ther Drug Monit 1984; 6:360–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 13

    Datta P, Xu L, Malik S, Landicho D, Ferreri L, Halverson K, et al. Effect of antibody specificity on results of selected digoxin immunoassays among various clinical groups. Clin Chem 1996; 42:373–9.Google Scholar

  • 14

    Boscato LM, Stuart MC. Incidence and specificity of interference in two-site immunoassays. Clin Chem 1986; 32:1491–5.Google Scholar

  • 15

    Liendo C, Ghali JK, Graves SW. A new interference in some digoxin assays: anti-murine heterophilic antibodies. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 60:593–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 16

    Dasgupta A. Endogenous and exogenous digoxin-like immunoreactive substances: impact on therapeutic drug monitoring of digoxin. Am J Clin Pathol 2002; 118:132–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 17

    Ijiri Y, Hayashi T, Kamegai H, Ohi K, Suzuki K, Kitaura Y, et al. Digitalis-like immunoreactive substances in maternal and umbilical cord plasma: a comparative sensitivity study of fluorescence polarization immunoassay and microparticle enzyme immunoassay. Ther Drug Monit 2003; 25:234–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 18

    Steimer W, Müller C, Eber B. Digoxin assays: frequent, substantial, and potentially dangerous interference by spironolactone, canrenone, and other steroids. Clin Chem 2002; 48:507–16.Google Scholar

  • 19

    Okazaki M, Tanigawara Y, Kita T, Komada F, Okumura K. Cross-reactivity of TDX and OPUS immunoassay systems for serum digoxin determination. Ther Drug Monit 1997; 19:657–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 20

    Kaiser P, Kramer U, Meissner D, Kress M, Wood WG, Reinauer H. Determination of the cardiac glycosides digoxin and digitoxin by liquid chromatography combined with isotope-dilution mass spectrometry (LCIDMS) – a candidate reference measurement procedure. Clin Lab 2003; 49:329–43.Google Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Bogdan Solnica, Diagnostic Division, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Jagiellonian University, Collegium Medicum, 15b Kopernika Street, 31-501 Krakow, Poland. Phone/Fax: +48124248361, E-mail:


Received: 2004-02-17

Accepted: 2004-04-19

Published Online: 2011-09-21

Published in Print: 2004-08-01


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2004.156.

Export Citation

© Walter de Gruyter. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Xing Shen, Jiahong Chen, Xiangmei Li, Hongtao Lei, Zhenlin Xu, Yingju Liu, Xinan Huang, Sergei A. Eremin, Cuihua Wu, and Aijuan Jia
Food and Agricultural Immunology, 2017, Page 1
[2]
Mei-xia Zhou, Cha-ying Guan, Guang Chen, Xin-you Xie, and Sheng-hai Wu
Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B, 2005, Volume 6, Number 12, Page 1148
[3]
Phytochemical Analysis, 2005, Volume 16, Number 2, Page 134

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in