Interference of anti-streptavidin antibodies: More common than we thought? In relation to six confirmed cases.

Automated immunoassays are extensively used in routine laboratory diagnostics of endocrine disorders because of their advantages, such as high sensitivity, precision, and specificity. However, these methods are limited by the susceptibility of the immunochemical reaction to various interferences. They may present interferences related to the assay's design, for example, the endogenous presence of anti-streptavidin antibodies (ASA) in platforms that use the biotin-streptavidin interaction. To date, there have been few reports in the literature of interference from endogenous ASA. However, such antibodies would potentially lead to falsely decreased or increased results of hormones that can lead to incorrect diagnoses. We report six patients with unusual thyroid function tests, incongruent to their clinical findings. They present elevated concentrations of total T3 and T4 and TSH values within the reference range when measured at Cobas 8000® e801 module (Roche Diagnostics®). Neither patient had been taking biotin; however, all demonstrated the presence of ASA causing falsely high results on competitive assays and also falsely low results on sandwich assays. The hormone panel was also analyzed in the same samples using a different platform available in our laboratory: Cobas 6000® e601 module (Roche Diagnostics®). Nine samples were sent to an external laboratory to be measured with the chemiluminescent method: ADVIA Centaur® (Siemens® Healthcare Diagnostics). The interference seems to affect e801 module and competitive assays the most without affecting results obtained by this chemiluminescent method. This interference could potentially affect other assays performed on the same platform, such as ATPO and estradiol. Finally, laboratories should suspect the presence of interference when there is no correlation between the hormone profile and the patient's clinic. The biotin neutralization protocol demonstrated its effectiveness to eliminate ASA interference.

Comparison of three different methods of evaluation of metabolic acid-base disorders.

OBJECTIVES: The Stewart approach states that pH is primarily determined by Pco2, strong ion difference (SID), and nonvolatile weak acids. This method might identify severe metabolic disturbances that go undetected by traditional analysis. Our goal was to compare diagnostic and prognostic performances of the Stewart approach with a) the traditional analysis based on bicarbonate (HCO3) and base excess (BE); and b) an approach relying on HCO3, BE, and albumin-corrected anion gap (AGcorrected). DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: A university-affiliated hospital intensive care unit (ICU). PATIENTS: Nine hundred thirty-five patients admitted to the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Stewart approach detected an arterial metabolic alteration in 131 (14%) of patients with normal HCO3- and BE, including 120 (92%) patients with metabolic acidosis. However, 108 (90%) of these patients had an increased AGcorrected. The Stewart approach permitted the additional diagnosis of metabolic acidosis in only 12 (1%) patients with normal HCO3, BE, and AGcorrected. On the other hand, the Stewart approach failed to identify 27 (3%) patients with alterations otherwise observed with the use of HCO3-, BE, and AGcorrected (16 cases of acidosis and 11 of alkalosis). SID and BE, and strong ion gap (SIG) and AGcorrected, were tightly correlated (R2 = .86 and .97, p < .0001 for both) with narrow 95% limits of agreement (8 and 3 mmol/L, respectively). Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves to predict 30-day mortality were 0.83, 0.62, 0.61, 0.60, 0.57, 0.56, and 0.67 for Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, SIG, AGcorrected, SID, BE, HCO3-, and lactates, respectively (SOFA vs. the rest, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large group of critically ill patients, diagnostic performance of the Stewart approach exceeded that of HCO3- and BE. However, when AGcorrected was included in the analysis, the Stewart approach did not offer any diagnostic or prognostic advantages.