Björn Schniedewind1, Stefanie Niederlechner, Jeffrey L Galinkin, Kamisha L Johnson-Davis, Uwe Christians, Eric J Meyer. 1. *Department of Anesthesiology, iC42 Clinical Research and Development, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora; †Department of Pathology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center; ‡ARUP Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Salt Lake City, Utah; and §Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp, East Hanover, New Jersey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This ongoing academic collaboration was initiated for providing support to set up, validate, and maintain everolimus therapeutic drug monitoring assays and to study long-term interlaboratory performance. METHODS: This study was based on EDTA whole blood samples collected from transplant patients treated with everolimus in a prospective clinical trial. Samples were handled under controlled conditions during collection, storage and were shipped on dry ice to minimize freeze-thaw cycles. For more than 1.5 years, participating laboratories received a set of 3 blinded samples on a monthly basis. Among others, these samples included individual patient samples, patient sample pools to assess long-term performance, and patient samples pools enriched with isolated everolimus metabolites. RESULTS: The results between liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and the everolimus Quantitative Microsphere System (QMS, Thermo Fisher) assay were comparable. The monthly interlaboratory variability (coefficient of variation %) for cross-validation samples ranged from 6.5% to 23.2% (average of 14.8%) for LC-MS/MS and 4.2% to 26.4% (average of 11.1%) for laboratories using the QMS assay. A blinded long-term pool sample was sent to the laboratories for 13 months. The result was 5.31 ± 0.86 ng/mL (range, 2.9-7.8 ng/mL) for the LC-MS/MS and 5.20 ± 0.54 ng/mL (range, 4.0-6.8 ng/mL) for QMS laboratories. Enrichment of patient sample pools with 5-25 ng/mL of purified everolimus metabolites (46-hydroxy everolimus and 39-O-desmethyl everolimus) did not affect the results of either LC-MS/MS or QMS assays. CONCLUSIONS: Both LC-MS/MS and QMS assays gave similar results and showed similar performance, albeit with a trend toward higher interlaboratory variability among laboratories using LC-MS/MS than the QMS assay.
BACKGROUND: This ongoing academic collaboration was initiated for providing support to set up, validate, and maintain everolimus therapeutic drug monitoring assays and to study long-term interlaboratory performance. METHODS: This study was based on EDTA whole blood samples collected from transplant patients treated with everolimus in a prospective clinical trial. Samples were handled under controlled conditions during collection, storage and were shipped on dry ice to minimize freeze-thaw cycles. For more than 1.5 years, participating laboratories received a set of 3 blinded samples on a monthly basis. Among others, these samples included individual patient samples, patient sample pools to assess long-term performance, and patient samples pools enriched with isolated everolimus metabolites. RESULTS: The results between liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and the everolimus Quantitative Microsphere System (QMS, Thermo Fisher) assay were comparable. The monthly interlaboratory variability (coefficient of variation %) for cross-validation samples ranged from 6.5% to 23.2% (average of 14.8%) for LC-MS/MS and 4.2% to 26.4% (average of 11.1%) for laboratories using the QMS assay. A blinded long-term pool sample was sent to the laboratories for 13 months. The result was 5.31 ± 0.86 ng/mL (range, 2.9-7.8 ng/mL) for the LC-MS/MS and 5.20 ± 0.54 ng/mL (range, 4.0-6.8 ng/mL) for QMS laboratories. Enrichment of patient sample pools with 5-25 ng/mL of purified everolimus metabolites (46-hydroxy everolimus and 39-O-desmethyl everolimus) did not affect the results of either LC-MS/MS or QMS assays. CONCLUSIONS: Both LC-MS/MS and QMS assays gave similar results and showed similar performance, albeit with a trend toward higher interlaboratory variability among laboratories using LC-MS/MS than the QMS assay.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: David Lebwohl; Ozlem Anak; Tarek Sahmoud; Judith Klimovsky; Ingrid Elmroth; Tomas Haas; Joseph Posluszny; Stephen Saletan; William Berg Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Thomas M Annesley; Denise A McKeown; David W Holt; Christopher Mussell; Elodie Champarnaud; Leonie Harter; Lisa J Calton; Donald S Mason Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2013-07-31 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Daniel M Levine; Gregory T Maine; David A Armbruster; Christopher Mussell; Christoph Buchholz; Gavin O'Connor; Victoria Tuck; Atholl Johnston; David W Holt Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Tobin Strom; Manuel Haschke; Yan Ling Zhang; Jamie Bendrick-Peart; Jared Boyd; Mark Roberts; Lili Arabshahi; Peter Marbach; Uwe Christians Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Tobin Strom; Manuel Haschke; Jared Boyd; Mark Roberts; Lili Arabshahi; Peter Marbach; Uwe Christians Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Dorothea Lesche; Vilborg Sigurdardottir; Alexander B Leichtle; Christos T Nakas; Uwe Christians; Lars Englberger; Martin Fiedler; Carlo R Largiadèr; Paul Mohacsi; Johanna Sistonen Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2017-11-25 Impact factor: 4.290