Roger W Jelliffe1, Alan Schumitzky, David Bayard, Xiaowei Fu, Michael Neely. 1. *Department of Pediatrics, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Founder and Director Emeritus, Laboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles; †Department of Mathematics, University of Southern California; ‡Scientific Consultant, Laboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics; §Department of Pathology, Biochemical Genetics, and Special Chemistry; and ¶Department of Pediatrics, Director, Laboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Describing assay error as percent coefficient of variation (CV%) fails as measurements approach zero. Results are censored if below some arbitrarily chosen lower limit of quantification (LLOQ). CV% gives incorrect weighting to data obtained by therapeutic drug monitoring, with incorrect parameter values in the resulting pharmacokinetic models, and incorrect dosage regimens for patient care. METHODS: CV% was compared with the reciprocal of the variance (1/var) of each assay measurement. This method has not been considered by the laboratory community. A simple description of assay standard deviation (SD) as a polynomial function of the assay measurement over its working range was developed, the reciprocal of the assay variance determined, and its results compared with CV%. RESULTS: CV% does not provide correct weighting of measured serum concentrations as required for optimal therapeutic drug monitoring. It does not permit optimally individualized models of the behavior of a drug in a patient, resulting in incorrect dosage regimens. The assay error polynomial described here, using 1/var, provides correct weighting of such data, all the way down to and including zero. There is no need to censor low results, and no need to set any arbitrary LLOQ. CONCLUSIONS: Reciprocal of variance is the correct measure of assay precision and should replace CV%. The information is easily stored as an assay error polynomial. The laboratory can serve the medical community better. There is no longer any need for LLOQ, a significant improvement. Regulatory agencies should implement this more informed policy.
BACKGROUND: Describing assay error as percent coefficient of variation (CV%) fails as measurements approach zero. Results are censored if below some arbitrarily chosen lower limit of quantification (LLOQ). CV% gives incorrect weighting to data obtained by therapeutic drug monitoring, with incorrect parameter values in the resulting pharmacokinetic models, and incorrect dosage regimens for patient care. METHODS: CV% was compared with the reciprocal of the variance (1/var) of each assay measurement. This method has not been considered by the laboratory community. A simple description of assay standard deviation (SD) as a polynomial function of the assay measurement over its working range was developed, the reciprocal of the assay variance determined, and its results compared with CV%. RESULTS: CV% does not provide correct weighting of measured serum concentrations as required for optimal therapeutic drug monitoring. It does not permit optimally individualized models of the behavior of a drug in a patient, resulting in incorrect dosage regimens. The assay error polynomial described here, using 1/var, provides correct weighting of such data, all the way down to and including zero. There is no need to censor low results, and no need to set any arbitrary LLOQ. CONCLUSIONS: Reciprocal of variance is the correct measure of assay precision and should replace CV%. The information is easily stored as an assay error polynomial. The laboratory can serve the medical community better. There is no longer any need for LLOQ, a significant improvement. Regulatory agencies should implement this more informed policy.
Authors: Michael Rybak; Ben Lomaestro; John C Rotschafer; Robert Moellering; William Craig; Marianne Billeter; Joseph R Dalovisio; Donald P Levine Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2009-01-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: J W C Alffenaar; A M A Wessels; K van Hateren; B Greijdanus; J G W Kosterink; D R A Uges Journal: J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci Date: 2010-01-01 Impact factor: 3.205
Authors: R W Jelliffe; A Schumitzky; M Van Guilder; M Liu; L Hu; P Maire; P Gomis; X Barbaut; B Tahani Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 1993-10 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Sean N Avedissian; Gwendolyn M Pais; Michelle Pham; Jiajun Liu; Jack Chang; Khrystyna Hlukhenka; Walter Prozialeck; Brooke Griffin; Anil Gulati; Medha D Joshi; Ying Mu; Marc H Scheetz Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 5.938
Authors: Gellért Balázs Karvaly; Michael N Neely; Krisztián Kovács; István Vincze; Barna Vásárhelyi; Roger W Jelliffe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gellért Balázs Karvaly; István Vincze; Alexandra Balogh; Zoltán Köllő; Csaba Bödör; Barna Vásárhelyi Journal: Molecules Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 4.927