Comparison of a new rapid method for the determination of adalimumab serum levels with two established ELISA kits

Background Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of adalimumab (ADA) in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) has gained increased attention since several studies showed a correlation between drug levels and mucosal healing. The limitations of routine usage of enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay (ELISA) ki...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inClinical chemistry and laboratory medicine Vol. 57; no. 12; pp. 1906 - 1914
Main Authors Laserna-Mendieta, Emilio J., Salvador-Martín, Sara, Arias-González, Laura, Ruiz-Ponce, Miriam, Menchén, Luis A., Sánchez, César, López-Fernández, Luis A., Lucendo, Alfredo J.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Germany De Gruyter 01.12.2019
Walter De Gruyter & Company
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1434-6621
1437-4331
1437-4331
DOI10.1515/cclm-2019-0202

Cover

More Information
Summary:Background Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of adalimumab (ADA) in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) has gained increased attention since several studies showed a correlation between drug levels and mucosal healing. The limitations of routine usage of enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay (ELISA) kits for measuring serum ADA concentrations have prompted the development of rapid methods, such as Quantum Blue (QB). We evaluated the interchangeability and agreement between the QB method and two established ELISA kits, Promonitor (PM) and Lisa-Tracker (LT). Methods Fifty samples from patients with IBD were included. Quantitative analysis was performed using the ANOVA test for repeated measures, Deming regression and the Bland-Altman plot. Clinical implications were evaluated by concordance in classifying patients into therapeutic windows according to the proposed cut-off levels for subtherapeutic (either <5 or <7.5 μg/mL) and supratherapeutic (>12 μg/mL) ranges. Results Statistical differences were detected between the QB method and the two ELISA kits, with QB overestimating ADA serum values compared to them. A lack of interchangeability was observed between methods, with greater differences as ADA levels increased. An analysis of a sub-set of samples with ADA values below 9 μg/mL (n = 25) showed that QB fulfilled the criteria to be interchangeable with the LT assay. Concordance for patient classification into ADA therapeutic windows was better for QB vs. LT than for QB vs. PM, with high agreement (>75%) for subtherapeutic levels among the three methods. Conclusions Although quantitative differences existed between the rapid method and ELISA kits that hampered their interchangeability, the agreement for identifying patients with subtherapeutic values of ADA was high.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:1434-6621
1437-4331
1437-4331
DOI:10.1515/cclm-2019-0202