Comparison of the reintroduced MEIA (R) assay with HPLC-MS/MS for the determination of whole-blood sirolimus from transplant recipients

Therapeutic monitoring with dosage individualization of sirolimus drug therapy is standard clinical practice for organ transplant recipients. For several years sirolimus monitoring has been restricted as a result of lack of an immunoassay. The recent reintroduction of the microparticle enzyme immunoassay (MEIA (R)) for sirolimus on the IMx (R) analyser has the potential to address this situation. This Study, using patient samples, has compared the MEIA (R) sirolimus method with an established HPLC-tandem mass spectrometry method (HPLC-MS/MS). An established HPLC-UV assay was used for independent cross-validation. For quality control materials (5, 11, 22 mu g/L), the MEIA (R) showed acceptable validation criteria based on intra-and inter-run precision (CV) and accuracy (bias) of < 8% and < 13%, respectively. The lower limit of quantitation was found to be approximately 3 mu g/L. The performance of the immunoassay was compared with HPLC-MS/MS using EDTA whole-blood samples obtained from various types of organ transplant recipients (n = 116). The resultant Deming regression line was: MEIA = 1.3 x HPLC-MS/MS+ 1.3 (r = 0.967, s(y/x) = 1) with a mean bias of 49.2% +/- 23.1 % (range, -2.4% to 128%; P < 0.001). The reason for the large and variable bias was not explored in this study, but the sirolimus-metabolite cross-reactivity with the MEIA (R) antibody could be a substantive contributing factor. Whereas the MEIA (R) sirolimus method may be an adjunct to sirolimus dosage individualization in transplant recipients, users must consider the implications of the substantial and variable bias when interpreting results. In selected patients where difficult clinical issues arise, reference to a specific chromatographic method may be required.

An n-of-1 trial service in clinical practice: Testing the effectiveness of stimulants for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

OBJECTIVE. We sought to describe the clinical use of n-of-1 trials for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in publicly and privately funded family and specialized pediatric practice in Australia. METHODS. We used a within-patient randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of stimulant (dexamphetamine or methylphenidate) versus placebo or alternative stimulant using 3 pairs of treatment periods. Trials were conducted from a central location using mail and telephone communication, with local supervision by the patients' clinicians. PATIENTS. Our study population included children with clinically diagnosed attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder who were aged 5 to 16 years and previously stabilized on an optimal dose of stimulant. They were selected because treatment effectiveness was uncertain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES. Our measures included number of patients recruited, number of doctors who used the service, geographic spread, completion rates, response rate, and post-n-of-1 trial decisions. RESULTS. Forty-five doctors across Australia requested 108 n-of-1 trials, of which 86 were completed. In 69 drug-versus-placebo comparisons, 29 children responded better to stimulant than placebo. Immediately posttrial, 19 of 25 drug-versus-placebo responders stayed on the same stimulant, and 13 of 24 nonresponders ceased or switched stimulants. In 40 of 63 for which data were available, posttrial management was consistent with the trial results. For all types of n-of-1 trials, management changed for 28 of 64 children for whom information was available. DISCUSSION. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder n-of-1 trials can be implemented successfully by mail and telephone communication. This type of trial can be valuable in clarifying treatment effect when it is uncertain, and in this series, they had a noticeable impact on short-term management.

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of twice-daily Ritalin and once-daily Equasym XL with placebo in children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of two methylphenidate (MPH) formulations—once-daily modified-release MPH (EqXL, Equasym™ XL) and twice-daily immediate-release methylphenidate (MPH-IR, Ritalin®)—and placebo in children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Methods Children aged 6–12 years on a stable dose of MPH were randomized into a double-blind, three-arm, parallel-group, multi-center study and received 3 weeks of EqXL (20, 40, or 60 mg qd), MPH-IR (10, 20, or 30 mg bid) or placebo. Non-inferiority of EqXL to MPH-IR was assessed by the difference in the inattention/overactivity component of the overall teacher’s IOWA Conners’ Rating Scale on the last week of treatment (per protocol population). Safety was monitored by adverse events, laboratory parameters, vital signs, physical exam, and a Side Effect Rating Scale. Results The lower 97.5% confidence interval bound of the difference between MPH groups fell above the non-inferiority margin (−1.5 points) not only during the last week of treatment but during all three treatment weeks. Both MPH-treatment groups experienced superior benefit when compared to placebo during all treatment weeks (P < 0.001). All treatments were well tolerated. Conclusions EqXL given once-daily was non-inferior to MPH-IR given twice-daily. Both treatments were superior to placebo in reducing ADHD symptoms.

Comparison of ASAS improvement criteria for ankylosing spondylitis with clinically relevant improvement according to an expert panel

Objective: To investigate whether the recently developed (statistically derived) "ASsessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group" improvement criteria (ASAS-IC) for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) reflect clinically relevant improvement according to the opinion of an expert panel. Methods: The ASAS-IC consist of four domains: physical function, spinal pain, patient global assessment, and inflammation. Scores on these four domains of 55 patients with AS, who had participated in a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug efficacy trial, were presented to an international expert panel (consisting of patients with AS and members of the ASAS Working Group) in a three round Delphi exercise. The number of (non-) responders according to the ASAS-IC was compared with the final-consensus of the experts. The most important domains in the opinion of the experts were identified, and also selected with discriminant analysis. A number of provisional criteria sets that best represented the consensus of the experts were defined. Using other datasets, these clinically derived criteria sets as well as the statistically derived ASAS-IC were then tested for discriminative properties and for agreement with the end of trial efficacy by patient and doctor. Results: Forty experts completed the three Delphi rounds. The experts considered twice as many patients to be responders than the ASAS-IC (42 v 21). Overall agreement between experts and ASAS-IC was 62%. Spinal pain was considered the most important domain by most experts and was also selected as such by discriminant analysis. Provisional criteria sets with an agreement of greater than or equal to 80% compared with the consensus of the experts showed high placebo response rates (27-42%), in contrast with the ASAS-IC with a predefined placebo response rate of 25%. All criteria sets and the ASAS-IC discriminated well between active and placebo treatment (chi(2) = 36-45; p < 0.001). Compared with the end of trial efficacy assessment, the provisional criteria sets showed an agreement of 71-82%, sensitivity of 67-83%, and specificity of 81-88%. The ASAS-IC showed an agreement of 70%, sensitivity of 62%, and specificity of 89%. Conclusion: The ASAS-IC are strict in defining response, are highly specific, and consequently show lower sensitivity than the clinically derived criteria sets. However, those patients who are considered as responders by applying the ASAS-IC are acknowledged as such by the expert panel as well as by. patients' and doctors' judgments, and are therefore likely to be true responders.