Effect of Extraction Procedure Substitution on Automated Tacrolimus, Sirolimus, and Cyclosporine Assays.

BACKGROUND: An erroneously high tacrolimus level was reported to a clinician. A root cause analysis investigation failed to determine the cause of the error. It was suspected that the incorrect preanalytical extraction reagent and procedure was used during testing; however, how this would affect the assayed drug concentration was unclear. Here we investigated the effect of the substitution of sirolimus, tacrolimus, and cyclosporine extraction reagents on assayed drug concentration. METHODS: Tacrolimus, sirolimus, and cyclosporine concentration were measured on the Abbott Architect i2000 analyzer. Each assay requires a preanalytical extraction step, with a distinct reagent. We investigated the effect of the substitution of the extraction reagents and procedure between the 3 assays on the measured drug concentration. Two experiments were performed, one on samples of known drug concentration and one on samples with no drug present. RESULTS: Substituting cyclosporine and sirolimus extraction procedures increased assayed tacrolimus concentrations from 5.6 to 8.47 (+51.25%) and 8.13 (+45.18%) ng/mL, respectively. Extraction procedure substitutions decreased assayed sirolimus from 13.63 to 4.60 (-66.25%) and 8.07 (-40.79%) ng/mL for cyclosporine and tacrolimus. Cyclosporine concentration increased from 274.60 to 391.30 (+42.50%) ng/mL using sirolimus extraction reagents and to 757.30 (+175.78%) ng/mL using tacrolimus extraction reagents. Cross-reactivity was observed between the tacrolimus assay and sirolimus and cyclosporine extraction reagents. CONCLUSIONS: Significant changes, both positive and negative, are observed in assayed drug concentration when incorrect extraction procedures are used in the Abbott i2000 tacrolimus, sirolimus, and cyclosporine assays. Preanalytic extraction procedures should be investigated when performing root cause analysis for erroneous therapeutic drug values.

Use of a Daratumumab-Specific Immunofixation Assay to Assess Possible Immunotherapy Interference at a Major Cancer Center: Our Experience and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The incorporation of monoclonal antibodies, such as daratumumab, into multiple myeloma treatment regimens has led to the issue of false-positive interference in both serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) and immunofixation (IF). The Hydrashift assay removes daratumumab interference from IF, allowing for correct interpretation. Here, we retrospectively examined the use of the Hydrashift assay at a large cancer center and provide guidelines on its most appropriate use. METHODS: 38 patients with distinct daratumumab peaks on their SPEP were selected and were used to quantify the daratumumab peak on SPEP using the Sebia Phoresis software. A retrospective review of all Hydrashift assays ordered at our institution from July 2018 to March 2020 was performed. Data collected included patient clone type, IF migration patterns, and Hydrashift result. Serial quantification of SPEP results was performed as the corresponding IF transitioned from a true positive to a false positive. RESULTS: Daratumumab adds a maximum magnitude of 0.20 g/dL on SPEP. Serial SPEP quantification showed IF transitioned from true positive to false positive when M-spikes ranged from 0.09 g/dL to 0.11 g/dL. Over 20 months, our laboratory performed 280 Hydrashift assays on 96 patients, 43/96 of whom had comigrating daratumumab/IgG-K IF bands. CONCLUSIONS: The Hydrashift assay is typically unnecessary in patients with large M-spikes, >0.25 g/dL, regardless of clone type. When patient history is available, we recommend the Hydrashift assay be used in patients with comigrating daratumumab/IgG-K bands with M-spikes of <0.25 g/dL.