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.
N1 - Generated from Scopus record by KAUST IRTS on 2023-09-20
PY - 1999/2/1
Y1 - 1999/2/1
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.
UR - http://journals.lww.com/00007691-199902000-00019
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033022673&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/00007691-199902000-00019
DO - 10.1097/00007691-199902000-00019
M3 - Article
SN - 0163-4356
VL - 21
SP - 123
EP - 128
JO - Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
JF - Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
IS - 1
ER -