[Influence of the delay in urinary NMP22 preanalytical processing]. / Influencia del retraso en el procesamiento preanalítico de la orina en la determinacin del NMP22.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of the delay in urinary NMP22 preanalytical processing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-eight voided urine samples were taken: bladder cancer (14), urine tract infections (4), lithiasis (4), healthy volunteers (1), and with other no malignant bladder diseases (5). All samples, were maintained at environment temperature, and were processed according to the stabilization of parts of urine collected at 0, 30, 90 and 150 minutes. Samples were stored at 4 degrees C until its determination. NMP22 was determined with the IMMULITE One analyzer. RESULTS: There were no significant differences for NMP22 levels between each different point of time studied. CONCLUSIONS: Delay up to 2 hours and a half when we add stabilization solution to urine samples no affects NMP22 results. That thing, might provide more confidence and flexibility on quantitative immunoassays that required urine stabilization.

Influencia del retraso en el procesamiento preanalítico de la orina en la determinación del NMP22 / Influence of the delay in urinary NMP22 preanalytical processing

Objetivo: Evaluar la influencia del retraso en el procesamiento preanalítico de orinas en las que se realiza la determinación del marcador tumoral NMP22. Material y métodos: Se recogieron 28 muestras de orina: tumores vesicales (14), infecciones urinarias (4), litiasis (4), voluntarios sanos (1), y otras patologías vesicales benignas (5). De cada muestra, mantenida a temperatura ambiente, se fueron estabilizando alícuotas con el conservante suministrado por el fabricante a los 0, 30, 90 y 150 minutos, guardándose a 4ºC hasta su procesamiento. El análisis del NMP22 se realizó en autoanalizador IMMULITE One. Resultados: No se apreciaron diferencias significativas en los niveles del NMP22 entre los diferentes puntos de demora estudiados. Conclusiones: La demora de hasta dos horas y media en la adición de la solución conservante a la orina para determinación de NMP22 no afecta significativamente a los resultados obtenidos. Este hecho permite una mayor confianza y flexibilidad en los inmunoensayos cuantitativos que requieren estabilización de la muestra

Objectives: To evaluate the influence of the delay in urinary NMP22 preanalytical processing. Material and methods: Twenty-eight voided urine samples were taken: bladder cancer (14), urine tract infections (4), lithiasis (4), healthy volunteers (1), and with other no malignant bladder diseases (5). All samples, were maintained at environment temperature, and were processed according to the stabilization of parts of urine collected at 0, 30, 90 and 150 minutes. Samples were stored at 4 ºC until its determination. NMP22 was determined with the IMMULITE One analyzer. Results: There were no significant differences for NMP22 levels between each different point of time studied. Conclusions: Delay up to 2 hours and a half when we add stabilization solution to urine samples no affects NMP22 results. That thing, might provide more confidence and flexibility on quantitative immunoassays that required urine stabilization

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of mycophenolic acid profiles during the period immediately following an orthotopic liver transplant.

BACKGROUND: Area under the curve (AUC) limited sampling strategies have been proposed to improve the efficiency of mycophenolic acid (MPA), treatment of the transplanted patient. Our objective was to develop a model in the initial phase of the transplantation that explains the variability in the pharmacokinetic behavior of MPA in the immediate posttransplant period, following treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in adult liver transplantation. METHODS: One hundred ten pharmacokinetic simplified sampling profiles were collected, including four samples over a 6-hour postdose interval, in over 60 patients treated with cyclosporine or tacrolimus, MMF, and steroids, combining Daclizumab in more than a third of the patients. For an enzyme-multiplied immunoassay technique method was established for MPA estimates. The correlation between the AUC and the plasma concentration points was established using a multiple linear regression with various equations for three different pharmacokinetic groups. RESULTS: The maximum mean values of MPA AUC and predose concentration (C0h) (20.8 +/- 11.8 and 2.3 +/- 1.8, respectively) were reached on the third day. The single sample showing the greatest correlation with the MPA AUC was the one collected after 3 hours (r(2) = 0.575); 59.1% of profiles displayed a single peak with more than half showing a tmax >/= 3 hours. CONCLUSIONS: This profile analysis during the first few weeks highlighted the problems in determining therapeutic targets. Profiles showing a double peak revealed the marked influence of the enterohepatic cycle on MPA concentrations during the initial phase.