Biotin Interference in Clinical Immunoassays: A Cause for Concern
To the Editor.-An increase in the use of biotin supplements by the general public is producing an increase in the number of reports of analytic interference in biotin-based immunoassays (BBAs) used to evaluate endocrine function.1,2 The fact that BBAs of similar design are currently used to diagnose...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976) 2017-11, Vol.141 (11), p.1459-1460 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1460 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 1459 |
container_title | Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976) |
container_volume | 141 |
creator | Holmes, Earle W Samarasinghe, Shanika Emanuele, Mary Ann Meah, Farah |
description | To the Editor.-An increase in the use of biotin supplements by the general public is producing an increase in the number of reports of analytic interference in biotin-based immunoassays (BBAs) used to evaluate endocrine function.1,2 The fact that BBAs of similar design are currently used to diagnose and manage a wide range of other medical conditions, including anemias, malignancies, autoimmune and infectious diseases, and cardiac damage, raises the concern that the accuracy of results for other routine tests are compromised as well.3 Methods that use immunometric ("sandwich") or competitive formats are at the greatest risk for producing falsely decreased or falsely increased results, respectively, when biotin is present in the sample. Eighty-two of these were immunometric or competitive methods that had manufacturer-reported interference thresholds (IFTs) (ie, the concentrations above which exogenous biotin in the sample caused a difference of greater than ±10% in the test result) of less than 51 ng/mL. In this case, the risk of an erroneous test result could persist for up to 8 elimination half-lives (>6 days) for a method with an IFT of 2.4 ng/mL. [...]it might be necessary to avoid the use of some BBAs altogether when testing subjects who are using the 100-mg biotin supplements that are now available overthe-counter.2,5 The confluence of increased biotin supplement use by patients and the design limitations of many of the BBAs have already led to the misdiagnosis and mismanagement of patients.1-3 We are convinced that the risk of analytic interference by biotin supplements is a serious problem that needs to be more widely recognized and promptly addressed by health care providers, directors of clinical laboratories, and decision makers in the clinical diagnostics industry. |
doi_str_mv | 10.5858/arpa.2017-0107-LE |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1957475649</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A528917377</galeid><sourcerecordid>A528917377</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c574t-4ead7824ead75035f4481319c5ad1dc44a14bb4be40acc3f3d8cc9f6bce1841a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkk1v3CAQhlHVqtmm_QG9VJYqVb14AxgW09vW2jYrrdRLekYYDwkRhi3Yh_z74Cb9SLTiMBr0vAMaPQi9J3jNW95e6HTUa4qJqDHBoj7sXqAV4aypKdnwl2iFMW5qKVt-ht7kfFtaSSl5jc6oxIJKjldo-9XFyYVqHyZIFhIEA1XpO--CM9pX-3GcQ9Q567v8pdpWnZ4zVDamqouFTeEtemW1z_DusZ6jn992V91lffjxfd9tD7Xhgk01Az2Ilv4uHDfcMtaShkjD9UAGw5gmrO9ZDwxrYxrbDK0x0m56A6RlRDfn6PPD3GOKv2bIkxpdNuC9DhDnrIgs7wi-YbKgH5-ht3FOofyuUJuyBC6o-Eddaw_KBRunpM0yVG05bSURjVio-gR1DQGS9jGAdeX6Cb8-wZczwOjMycCn_wI3oP10k6OfJxdDfgqSB9CkmHMCq47JjTrdKYLV4oNafFCLD2rxQR12JfPhcRNzP8LwN_FHgOYekQytzA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1960925727</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biotin Interference in Clinical Immunoassays: A Cause for Concern</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Allen Press Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Holmes, Earle W ; Samarasinghe, Shanika ; Emanuele, Mary Ann ; Meah, Farah</creator><creatorcontrib>Holmes, Earle W ; Samarasinghe, Shanika ; Emanuele, Mary Ann ; Meah, Farah</creatorcontrib><description>To the Editor.-An increase in the use of biotin supplements by the general public is producing an increase in the number of reports of analytic interference in biotin-based immunoassays (BBAs) used to evaluate endocrine function.1,2 The fact that BBAs of similar design are currently used to diagnose and manage a wide range of other medical conditions, including anemias, malignancies, autoimmune and infectious diseases, and cardiac damage, raises the concern that the accuracy of results for other routine tests are compromised as well.3 Methods that use immunometric ("sandwich") or competitive formats are at the greatest risk for producing falsely decreased or falsely increased results, respectively, when biotin is present in the sample. Eighty-two of these were immunometric or competitive methods that had manufacturer-reported interference thresholds (IFTs) (ie, the concentrations above which exogenous biotin in the sample caused a difference of greater than ±10% in the test result) of less than 51 ng/mL. In this case, the risk of an erroneous test result could persist for up to 8 elimination half-lives (>6 days) for a method with an IFT of 2.4 ng/mL. [...]it might be necessary to avoid the use of some BBAs altogether when testing subjects who are using the 100-mg biotin supplements that are now available overthe-counter.2,5 The confluence of increased biotin supplement use by patients and the design limitations of many of the BBAs have already led to the misdiagnosis and mismanagement of patients.1-3 We are convinced that the risk of analytic interference by biotin supplements is a serious problem that needs to be more widely recognized and promptly addressed by health care providers, directors of clinical laboratories, and decision makers in the clinical diagnostics industry.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-9985</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1543-2165</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1543-2165</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2017-0107-LE</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29072950</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: College of American Pathologists</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Biotin ; Biotin - adverse effects ; Biotin - blood ; Causes of ; Data Accuracy ; Diagnostic errors ; Dietary supplements ; Dietary Supplements - adverse effects ; Dietary Supplements - analysis ; Drug dosages ; Endocrinology ; Humans ; Immunoassay ; Immunoassay - methods ; Infectious diseases ; Methods ; Physiological aspects ; Risk Management</subject><ispartof>Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976), 2017-11, Vol.141 (11), p.1459-1460</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 College of American Pathologists</rights><rights>Copyright College of American Pathologists Nov 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c574t-4ead7824ead75035f4481319c5ad1dc44a14bb4be40acc3f3d8cc9f6bce1841a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c574t-4ead7824ead75035f4481319c5ad1dc44a14bb4be40acc3f3d8cc9f6bce1841a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27915,27916</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29072950$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Holmes, Earle W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Samarasinghe, Shanika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Emanuele, Mary Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meah, Farah</creatorcontrib><title>Biotin Interference in Clinical Immunoassays: A Cause for Concern</title><title>Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976)</title><addtitle>Arch Pathol Lab Med</addtitle><description>To the Editor.-An increase in the use of biotin supplements by the general public is producing an increase in the number of reports of analytic interference in biotin-based immunoassays (BBAs) used to evaluate endocrine function.1,2 The fact that BBAs of similar design are currently used to diagnose and manage a wide range of other medical conditions, including anemias, malignancies, autoimmune and infectious diseases, and cardiac damage, raises the concern that the accuracy of results for other routine tests are compromised as well.3 Methods that use immunometric ("sandwich") or competitive formats are at the greatest risk for producing falsely decreased or falsely increased results, respectively, when biotin is present in the sample. Eighty-two of these were immunometric or competitive methods that had manufacturer-reported interference thresholds (IFTs) (ie, the concentrations above which exogenous biotin in the sample caused a difference of greater than ±10% in the test result) of less than 51 ng/mL. In this case, the risk of an erroneous test result could persist for up to 8 elimination half-lives (>6 days) for a method with an IFT of 2.4 ng/mL. [...]it might be necessary to avoid the use of some BBAs altogether when testing subjects who are using the 100-mg biotin supplements that are now available overthe-counter.2,5 The confluence of increased biotin supplement use by patients and the design limitations of many of the BBAs have already led to the misdiagnosis and mismanagement of patients.1-3 We are convinced that the risk of analytic interference by biotin supplements is a serious problem that needs to be more widely recognized and promptly addressed by health care providers, directors of clinical laboratories, and decision makers in the clinical diagnostics industry.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Biotin</subject><subject>Biotin - adverse effects</subject><subject>Biotin - blood</subject><subject>Causes of</subject><subject>Data Accuracy</subject><subject>Diagnostic errors</subject><subject>Dietary supplements</subject><subject>Dietary Supplements - adverse effects</subject><subject>Dietary Supplements - analysis</subject><subject>Drug dosages</subject><subject>Endocrinology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immunoassay</subject><subject>Immunoassay - methods</subject><subject>Infectious diseases</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Physiological aspects</subject><subject>Risk Management</subject><issn>0003-9985</issn><issn>1543-2165</issn><issn>1543-2165</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNptkk1v3CAQhlHVqtmm_QG9VJYqVb14AxgW09vW2jYrrdRLekYYDwkRhi3Yh_z74Cb9SLTiMBr0vAMaPQi9J3jNW95e6HTUa4qJqDHBoj7sXqAV4aypKdnwl2iFMW5qKVt-ht7kfFtaSSl5jc6oxIJKjldo-9XFyYVqHyZIFhIEA1XpO--CM9pX-3GcQ9Q567v8pdpWnZ4zVDamqouFTeEtemW1z_DusZ6jn992V91lffjxfd9tD7Xhgk01Az2Ilv4uHDfcMtaShkjD9UAGw5gmrO9ZDwxrYxrbDK0x0m56A6RlRDfn6PPD3GOKv2bIkxpdNuC9DhDnrIgs7wi-YbKgH5-ht3FOofyuUJuyBC6o-Eddaw_KBRunpM0yVG05bSURjVio-gR1DQGS9jGAdeX6Cb8-wZczwOjMycCn_wI3oP10k6OfJxdDfgqSB9CkmHMCq47JjTrdKYLV4oNafFCLD2rxQR12JfPhcRNzP8LwN_FHgOYekQytzA</recordid><startdate>201711</startdate><enddate>201711</enddate><creator>Holmes, Earle W</creator><creator>Samarasinghe, Shanika</creator><creator>Emanuele, Mary Ann</creator><creator>Meah, Farah</creator><general>College of American Pathologists</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201711</creationdate><title>Biotin Interference in Clinical Immunoassays: A Cause for Concern</title><author>Holmes, Earle W ; Samarasinghe, Shanika ; Emanuele, Mary Ann ; Meah, Farah</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c574t-4ead7824ead75035f4481319c5ad1dc44a14bb4be40acc3f3d8cc9f6bce1841a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Biotin</topic><topic>Biotin - adverse effects</topic><topic>Biotin - blood</topic><topic>Causes of</topic><topic>Data Accuracy</topic><topic>Diagnostic errors</topic><topic>Dietary supplements</topic><topic>Dietary Supplements - adverse effects</topic><topic>Dietary Supplements - analysis</topic><topic>Drug dosages</topic><topic>Endocrinology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immunoassay</topic><topic>Immunoassay - methods</topic><topic>Infectious diseases</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Physiological aspects</topic><topic>Risk Management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Holmes, Earle W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Samarasinghe, Shanika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Emanuele, Mary Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meah, Farah</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Holmes, Earle W</au><au>Samarasinghe, Shanika</au><au>Emanuele, Mary Ann</au><au>Meah, Farah</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biotin Interference in Clinical Immunoassays: A Cause for Concern</atitle><jtitle>Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976)</jtitle><addtitle>Arch Pathol Lab Med</addtitle><date>2017-11</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>141</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1459</spage><epage>1460</epage><pages>1459-1460</pages><issn>0003-9985</issn><issn>1543-2165</issn><eissn>1543-2165</eissn><abstract>To the Editor.-An increase in the use of biotin supplements by the general public is producing an increase in the number of reports of analytic interference in biotin-based immunoassays (BBAs) used to evaluate endocrine function.1,2 The fact that BBAs of similar design are currently used to diagnose and manage a wide range of other medical conditions, including anemias, malignancies, autoimmune and infectious diseases, and cardiac damage, raises the concern that the accuracy of results for other routine tests are compromised as well.3 Methods that use immunometric ("sandwich") or competitive formats are at the greatest risk for producing falsely decreased or falsely increased results, respectively, when biotin is present in the sample. Eighty-two of these were immunometric or competitive methods that had manufacturer-reported interference thresholds (IFTs) (ie, the concentrations above which exogenous biotin in the sample caused a difference of greater than ±10% in the test result) of less than 51 ng/mL. In this case, the risk of an erroneous test result could persist for up to 8 elimination half-lives (>6 days) for a method with an IFT of 2.4 ng/mL. [...]it might be necessary to avoid the use of some BBAs altogether when testing subjects who are using the 100-mg biotin supplements that are now available overthe-counter.2,5 The confluence of increased biotin supplement use by patients and the design limitations of many of the BBAs have already led to the misdiagnosis and mismanagement of patients.1-3 We are convinced that the risk of analytic interference by biotin supplements is a serious problem that needs to be more widely recognized and promptly addressed by health care providers, directors of clinical laboratories, and decision makers in the clinical diagnostics industry.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>College of American Pathologists</pub><pmid>29072950</pmid><doi>10.5858/arpa.2017-0107-LE</doi><tpages>2</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-9985 |
ispartof | Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976), 2017-11, Vol.141 (11), p.1459-1460 |
issn | 0003-9985 1543-2165 1543-2165 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1957475649 |
source | MEDLINE; Allen Press Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Accuracy Biotin Biotin - adverse effects Biotin - blood Causes of Data Accuracy Diagnostic errors Dietary supplements Dietary Supplements - adverse effects Dietary Supplements - analysis Drug dosages Endocrinology Humans Immunoassay Immunoassay - methods Infectious diseases Methods Physiological aspects Risk Management |
title | Biotin Interference in Clinical Immunoassays: A Cause for Concern |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T21%3A28%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Biotin%20Interference%20in%20Clinical%20Immunoassays:%20A%20Cause%20for%20Concern&rft.jtitle=Archives%20of%20pathology%20&%20laboratory%20medicine%20(1976)&rft.au=Holmes,%20Earle%20W&rft.date=2017-11&rft.volume=141&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1459&rft.epage=1460&rft.pages=1459-1460&rft.issn=0003-9985&rft.eissn=1543-2165&rft_id=info:doi/10.5858/arpa.2017-0107-LE&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA528917377%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1960925727&rft_id=info:pmid/29072950&rft_galeid=A528917377&rfr_iscdi=true |