ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2024
The measurement of immunosuppressive drugs bymass spectrometry and immunoassay in a SouthAfrican transplant setting.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Long-Term Monitoring of Everolimus Concentrations in Routine Clinical Practice: Evaluation of Patient Percentiles as Quality Indicator and Impact of Analytical Method Change.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is the gold standard for measurement of immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs), but is technically demanding and less accessible in resource-limited countries. Immunoassays can also measure ISD concentrations, but may be limited by cross-reactivity. We evaluated the performance of the Roche electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) for cyclosporine, everolimus and sirolimus against LC-MS/MS in an African population for the first time. Methods: Bias for ECLIA was estimated by comparing ECLIA-measured ISD concentrations to those obtained by LC-MS/MS in 42, 43 and 47 patient samples for cyclosporine, everolimus and sirolimus, respectively. Precision was assessed by performing replicate measurements of quality control materials. Results: Deming regression analysis for all ISDs showed strong correlation between ECLIA and LC-MS/MS with a Pearson's r of >0.94. The slopes for cyclosporine, everolimus and sirolimus were 0.94 [95 % CI: 0.87-1.03], 1.35 [95 % CI: 1.23-1.44] and 0.96 [95 % CI: 0.85-1.15] with y-intercepts of 31.60 μg/L [95 % CI: 2.02-57.63], 0.23 μg/L [95 % CI: 0.21 - 0.72] and 2.61 μg/L [95 % CI: 1.30-3.56], respectively. Difference plots showed a median bias of 2.07 % [95 % CI: 1.42 - 6.99 %], 41.2 % [95 % CI: 34.9-51.8 %] and 34.9 % [95 % CI: 28.4-47.3 %] for cyclosporine, everolimus and sirolimus, respectively. Conclusions: The cyclosporine ECLIA yielded results comparable to LC-MS/MS while poorly comparable results were obtained for everolimus and sirolimus, which may be explained by ISD metabolite cross-reactivity, amongst other factors. The poor comparability, although not unique, is noteworthy and the clinical consequences of these differences require further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.