BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of infliximab (IFX, Remicade®) can aid to optimize therapy efficacy. Many assays are available for this purpose. However, a reference standard is lacking. Therefore, we evaluated the analytical performance, agreement and clinically relevant differences of three commercially available IFX ELISA kits on an automated processing system. METHODS: The kits of Theradiag (Lisa Tracker Infliximab), Progenika (Promonitor IFX) and apDia (Infliximab ELISA) were implemented on an automated processing system. Imprecision was determined by triplicate measurements of patient samples on five days. Agreement was evaluated by analysis of 30 patient samples and four spiked samples by the selected ELISA kits and the in-house IFX ELISA of Sanquin Diagnostics (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Therapeutic consequences were evaluated by dividing patients into four treatment groups using cut-off levels of 1, 3 and 7 μg/mL and determining assay concordance. RESULTS: Within-run and between-run imprecision were acceptable (≤12% and ≤17%, respectively) within the quantification range of the selected ELISA kits. The apDia assay had the best precision and agreement to target values. Statistically significant differences were found between all assays except between Sanquin Diagnostics and the Lisa Tracker assay. The Promonitor assay measured the lowest IFX concentrations, the apDia assay the highest. When patients were classified in four treatment categories, 70% concordance was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Although all assays are suitable for TDM, significant differences were observed in both imprecision and agreement. Therapeutic consequences were acceptable when patients were divided in treatment categories, but this could be improved by assay standardization.
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of infliximab (IFX, Remicade®) can aid to optimize therapy efficacy. Many assays are available for this purpose. However, a reference standard is lacking. Therefore, we evaluated the analytical performance, agreement and clinically relevant differences of three commercially available IFX ELISA kits on an automated processing system. METHODS: The kits of Theradiag (Lisa Tracker Infliximab), Progenika (Promonitor IFX) and apDia (Infliximab ELISA) were implemented on an automated processing system. Imprecision was determined by triplicate measurements of patient samples on five days. Agreement was evaluated by analysis of 30 patient samples and four spiked samples by the selected ELISA kits and the in-house IFX ELISA of Sanquin Diagnostics (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Therapeutic consequences were evaluated by dividing patients into four treatment groups using cut-off levels of 1, 3 and 7 μg/mL and determining assay concordance. RESULTS: Within-run and between-run imprecision were acceptable (≤12% and ≤17%, respectively) within the quantification range of the selected ELISA kits. The apDia assay had the best precision and agreement to target values. Statistically significant differences were found between all assays except between Sanquin Diagnostics and the Lisa Tracker assay. The Promonitor assay measured the lowest IFX concentrations, the apDia assay the highest. When patients were classified in four treatment categories, 70% concordance was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Although all assays are suitable for TDM, significant differences were observed in both imprecision and agreement. Therapeutic consequences were acceptable when patients were divided in treatment categories, but this could be improved by assay standardization.
Authors: Vanessa P Gaspar; Sahar Ibrahim; Constance A Sobsey; Vincent R Richard; Alan Spatz; René P Zahedi; Christoph H Borchers Journal: ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci Date: 2020-11-13
Authors: E M H Schmitz; S Benoy-De Keuster; A J L Meier; V Scharnhorst; R A M Traksel; M A C Broeren; L J J Derijks Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Thomas Van Stappen; Lize Bollen; Niels Vande Casteele; Konstantinos Papamichael; Gert Van Assche; Marc Ferrante; Séverine Vermeire; Ann Gils Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 4.488