An overview on interference in clinical immunoassays: A cause for concern
Author:
- 1 January 2019
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Medknow in Hamdan Medical Journal
- Vol. 12 (4) , 158
Abstract
Immunoassays are rapid, simple, cost-effective, robust and sensitive laboratory techniques that are extensively used in many important areas of clinical medicine such as diagnosis, prevention, treatment and management of diseases. Universally, it is one of the most extensively used in vitro diagnostic testing methods, and its demand has been increasing exponentially over the past four decades. Routinely, these methods can quantify minute amounts of diverse analytes such as hormones, antibodies, proteins and drugs present in highly complex biological fluids, such as serum, urine, sweat, meconium and cerebrospinal fluid. Immunoassays are successful techniques that can detect up to picomolar concentrations using antigen–antibody reactions without the need of prior extraction. Although immunoassays are useful techniques that help physicians to take quick decisions, they too are subjected to interference from both exogenous and endogenous sources, resulting in false-positive and false-negative results. When the immunoassay results do not appear to fit the clinical picture, it becomes a great challenge to a clinical biochemist, alarms clinicians and confounds immunoassay manufacturers. Sometimes, these results can mislead or miss a diagnosis, resulting in unnecessary investigations and mental trauma to the patient and families. Hence, it is very important for one to be aware of the limitations of this immunoassay, to have knowledge about them and to take necessary actions or precautions to get the right result. There is no single procedure that can rule out all interferences. Furthermore, it is difficult for the laboratorians to identify antibody interference with immunoassay, and thus, physicians should be encouraged to communicate specifically with the laboratory about discordance between results and clinical findings. If there is any suspicion of discordance between the clinical and the laboratory data, an attempt should be made to reconcile the difference. Procedures should be put in place when interference is suspected. Constant communication is required between physician and laboratory about unexpected immunoassay results. Manufacturers can also be communicated to identify the presence of interfering antibody.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- When laboratory tests can mislead even when they appear plausibleClinical Medicine, 2017
- Misdiagnosis of Graves' Disease with Apparent Severe Hyperthyroidism in a Patient Taking Biotin MegadosesThyroid®, 2016
- Endogenous Antibody Interferences in ImmunoassaysLaboratory Medicine, 2013
- The fundamental flaws of immunoassays and potential solutions using tandem mass spectrometryJournal of Immunological Methods, 2009
- A case of hook effect in the serum free light chain assay using the Olympus AU400eClinical Biochemistry, 2009
- Meta-analysis: Diagnostic Accuracy of Anti–Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide Antibody and Rheumatoid Factor for Rheumatoid ArthritisAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2007
- Persistently Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen Level After Successful Laparoscopic Radical ProstatectomyLaboratory Medicine, 2006
- Giant invasive pituitary prolactinoma with falsely low serum prolactin: the significance of ‘hook effect’Journal of Neuro-Oncology, 2006
- HIGH DOSE HOOK EFFECT IN SERUM TOTAL AND FREE PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN IN A PATIENT WITH METASTATIC PROSTATE CANCERJournal of Urology, 2001
- False diagnosis and needless therapy of presumed malignant disease in women with false-positive human chorionic gonadotropin concentrationsThe Lancet, 2000