Analytic performance of two automated nonpretreatment digoxin immunoassays

Barun K De, Dena D. Booth, Pamela J. Magee, Marcia L. Moore, Teresa M. Preuss, T. Aaron Rose, William L. Roberts

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The analytic performance of two automated nonpretreatment digoxin methods, AxSYM Digoxin II and Vitros digoxin immunoassays, was assessed. Both assays had analytic sensitivities of less than 0.2 μg/L, were linear from digoxin concentrations of 0.5 to 4.0 μg/L, and showed acceptable precision, with a maximum total coefficient of variation (CV) of 8.9% and 6.4% for the AxSYM and Vitros, respectively. Comparison of the two methods using samples from patients receiving digoxin gave the following relationship: Vitros = 0.91 x AxSYM + 0.23 (r = 0.97, S(y,x) = 0.12). Digoxinlike immunoreactive factor (DLIF) crossreactivity was examined in specimens from patients who had hepatic disease, renal insufficiency, had undergone cardiac surgery, and in neonatal cord blood samples. Minimal crossreactivity was observed for most samples and the average crossreactivity for each group of samples was comparable for the two methods. The recovery of digoxin added to samples from each group of DLIF was similar, except for that from cord blood samples, for which recovery was significantly lower with the AxSYM method. Titration of a digoxin-spiked serum pool with digoxin-immune Fab showed a similar decrease in the measured digoxin concentration for both methods. Overall, the analytic performance characteristics of these two methods were comparable.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)123-128
Number of pages6
JournalTherapeutic Drug Monitoring
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1999
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Digoxin
Immunoassay
Fetal Blood
Blood
Recovery
Titration
Surgery
Thoracic Surgery
Renal Insufficiency
Assays
Liver
Serum

Keywords

  • Digoxin
  • Digoxin-immune Fab
  • Digoxinlike immunoreactive factor
  • Drug monitoring
  • Immunoassay

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Toxicology
  • Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis
  • Pharmacology
  • Biochemistry
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

De, B. K., Booth, D. D., Magee, P. J., Moore, M. L., Preuss, T. M., Rose, T. A., & Roberts, W. L. (1999). Analytic performance of two automated nonpretreatment digoxin immunoassays. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 21(1), 123-128. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007691-199902000-00019

Analytic performance of two automated nonpretreatment digoxin immunoassays. / De, Barun K; Booth, Dena D.; Magee, Pamela J.; Moore, Marcia L.; Preuss, Teresa M.; Rose, T. Aaron; Roberts, William L.

In: Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, Vol. 21, No. 1, 02.1999, p. 123-128.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

De, BK, Booth, DD, Magee, PJ, Moore, ML, Preuss, TM, Rose, TA & Roberts, WL 1999, 'Analytic performance of two automated nonpretreatment digoxin immunoassays', Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 123-128. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007691-199902000-00019
De, Barun K ; Booth, Dena D. ; Magee, Pamela J. ; Moore, Marcia L. ; Preuss, Teresa M. ; Rose, T. Aaron ; Roberts, William L. / Analytic performance of two automated nonpretreatment digoxin immunoassays. In: Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. 1999 ; Vol. 21, No. 1. pp. 123-128.
@article{28ec5553e7564ab69bba3f7f1d5be285,
title = "Analytic performance of two automated nonpretreatment digoxin immunoassays",
abstract = "The analytic performance of two automated nonpretreatment digoxin methods, AxSYM Digoxin II and Vitros digoxin immunoassays, was assessed. Both assays had analytic sensitivities of less than 0.2 μg/L, were linear from digoxin concentrations of 0.5 to 4.0 μg/L, and showed acceptable precision, with a maximum total coefficient of variation (CV) of 8.9{\%} and 6.4{\%} for the AxSYM and Vitros, respectively. Comparison of the two methods using samples from patients receiving digoxin gave the following relationship: Vitros = 0.91 x AxSYM + 0.23 (r = 0.97, S(y,x) = 0.12). Digoxinlike immunoreactive factor (DLIF) crossreactivity was examined in specimens from patients who had hepatic disease, renal insufficiency, had undergone cardiac surgery, and in neonatal cord blood samples. Minimal crossreactivity was observed for most samples and the average crossreactivity for each group of samples was comparable for the two methods. The recovery of digoxin added to samples from each group of DLIF was similar, except for that from cord blood samples, for which recovery was significantly lower with the AxSYM method. Titration of a digoxin-spiked serum pool with digoxin-immune Fab showed a similar decrease in the measured digoxin concentration for both methods. Overall, the analytic performance characteristics of these two methods were comparable.",
keywords = "Digoxin, Digoxin-immune Fab, Digoxinlike immunoreactive factor, Drug monitoring, Immunoassay",
author = "De, {Barun K} and Booth, {Dena D.} and Magee, {Pamela J.} and Moore, {Marcia L.} and Preuss, {Teresa M.} and Rose, {T. Aaron} and Roberts, {William L.}",
year = "1999",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1097/00007691-199902000-00019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "123--128",
journal = "Therapeutic Drug Monitoring",
issn = "0163-4356",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Analytic performance of two automated nonpretreatment digoxin immunoassays

AU - De, Barun K

AU - Booth, Dena D.

AU - Magee, Pamela J.

AU - Moore, Marcia L.

AU - Preuss, Teresa M.

AU - Rose, T. Aaron

AU - Roberts, William L.

PY - 1999/2

Y1 - 1999/2

N2 - The analytic performance of two automated nonpretreatment digoxin methods, AxSYM Digoxin II and Vitros digoxin immunoassays, was assessed. Both assays had analytic sensitivities of less than 0.2 μg/L, were linear from digoxin concentrations of 0.5 to 4.0 μg/L, and showed acceptable precision, with a maximum total coefficient of variation (CV) of 8.9% and 6.4% for the AxSYM and Vitros, respectively. Comparison of the two methods using samples from patients receiving digoxin gave the following relationship: Vitros = 0.91 x AxSYM + 0.23 (r = 0.97, S(y,x) = 0.12). Digoxinlike immunoreactive factor (DLIF) crossreactivity was examined in specimens from patients who had hepatic disease, renal insufficiency, had undergone cardiac surgery, and in neonatal cord blood samples. Minimal crossreactivity was observed for most samples and the average crossreactivity for each group of samples was comparable for the two methods. The recovery of digoxin added to samples from each group of DLIF was similar, except for that from cord blood samples, for which recovery was significantly lower with the AxSYM method. Titration of a digoxin-spiked serum pool with digoxin-immune Fab showed a similar decrease in the measured digoxin concentration for both methods. Overall, the analytic performance characteristics of these two methods were comparable.

AB - The analytic performance of two automated nonpretreatment digoxin methods, AxSYM Digoxin II and Vitros digoxin immunoassays, was assessed. Both assays had analytic sensitivities of less than 0.2 μg/L, were linear from digoxin concentrations of 0.5 to 4.0 μg/L, and showed acceptable precision, with a maximum total coefficient of variation (CV) of 8.9% and 6.4% for the AxSYM and Vitros, respectively. Comparison of the two methods using samples from patients receiving digoxin gave the following relationship: Vitros = 0.91 x AxSYM + 0.23 (r = 0.97, S(y,x) = 0.12). Digoxinlike immunoreactive factor (DLIF) crossreactivity was examined in specimens from patients who had hepatic disease, renal insufficiency, had undergone cardiac surgery, and in neonatal cord blood samples. Minimal crossreactivity was observed for most samples and the average crossreactivity for each group of samples was comparable for the two methods. The recovery of digoxin added to samples from each group of DLIF was similar, except for that from cord blood samples, for which recovery was significantly lower with the AxSYM method. Titration of a digoxin-spiked serum pool with digoxin-immune Fab showed a similar decrease in the measured digoxin concentration for both methods. Overall, the analytic performance characteristics of these two methods were comparable.

KW - Digoxin

KW - Digoxin-immune Fab

KW - Digoxinlike immunoreactive factor

KW - Drug monitoring

KW - Immunoassay

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033022673&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033022673&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00007691-199902000-00019

DO - 10.1097/00007691-199902000-00019

M3 - Article

C2 - 10051065

AN - SCOPUS:0033022673

VL - 21

SP - 123

EP - 128

JO - Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

JF - Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

SN - 0163-4356

IS - 1

ER -