Is the automated Elecsys tacrolimus assay on the Roche cobas e 602 analyzer an acceptable replacement for a liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry–based assay?

6Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives: This study evaluated the suitability and accuracy of the automated Roche Elecsys tacrolimus electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) by comparing it with a current laboratory-developed test by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Methods: The tacrolimus ECLIA was evaluated for precision, linearity, interference, and postextraction stability. Accuracy was compared with LC-MS/MS. Results: The tacrolimus ECLIA assay is precise, exhibits a measuring range of 0.75 to 30 ng/mL, and is tolerant of significant interferences (plasma indices: hemolysis <2306, icterus <55, lipemia <1427, and biotin <1200 ng/mL). Comparison with LC-MS/MS revealed a 26% proportional bias in patient samples evaluated for tacrolimus concentration (y = 1.26x + 0.08; r2 = 0.97; Sy/x = 0.94; n = 43) and an absolute mean (SD) bias of 2.2 (1.7) ng/ mL. Postextraction studies confirmed that samples were stable for up to 30 minutes under routine laboratory conditions. Conclusions: The 2 major challenges for implementation of the tacrolimus ECLIA assay are the postextraction sample stability and the significant proportional bias observed compared with the LC-MS/MS reference method. The 30-minute window for analysis of extracted samples is a practical challenge to the routine workflow of the core laboratory. In addition, disagreement between the immunoassay and LC-MS/MS methods can lead to discordant clinical interpretations and ultimately affect patient care.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kanegusuku, A. G., & Yeo, K. T. J. (2024). Is the automated Elecsys tacrolimus assay on the Roche cobas e 602 analyzer an acceptable replacement for a liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry–based assay? American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 161(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqad114

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free