
Evaluation of the QMS ® Teicoplanin Immunoassay (ThermoFisher Scientific) on Cobas ® 8000 System (Roche Diagnostics) and Comparison to Fluorescence Polarization Immunoassay for the Determination of Teicoplanin Concentrations in Human Plasma
Author(s) -
Dailly Eric,
Fraissinet François,
Deslandes Guillaume,
Bouquié Régis,
Jolliet Pascale
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of clinical laboratory analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.536
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1098-2825
pISSN - 0887-8013
DOI - 10.1002/jcla.21567
Subject(s) - fluorescence polarization immunoassay , chemistry , chromatography , immunoassay , teicoplanin , spectrum analyzer , analytical chemistry (journal) , medicine , vancomycin , immunology , biology , bacteria , antibody , genetics , staphylococcus aureus , engineering , electrical engineering
Background The performances of the QMS ® Teicoplanin immunoassay recently developed on Cobas ® 6000/8000 systems were evaluated and compared to a fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) [Teicoplanin Innofluor ® Assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Indianapolis, IN)] on FLX analyzer (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL)]. Methods The validation was performed according to the Cofrac (French Accreditation Committee) document SH GTA 04. For the comparison, 48 plasma samples were analyzed by FPIA and QMS assays. Results The QMS assay is accurate (intra assay and inter assay inaccuracy ≤ 2.4%) and precise (intra assay and inter assay imprecision ≤ 10.2%). A linear relationship [QMS = 1.0319 × FPIA – 2.8518, r 2 = 0.9246 ( P < 0.001)] between FPIA and QMS was found. In the Bland—Altman plots, no systematic bias was found even if QMS results trends to be lower (mean of the ratio QMS concentration/FPIA concentration = 0.91). Conclusion These results between QMS and FPIA are consistent, which indicates that QMS ® Teicoplanin immunoassay on Cobas ® 8000 System is an alternative to FPIA. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 27:96–98, 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.