Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, January 2009, p. 303-305, Vol. 53, No. 1
0066-4804/09/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/AAC.00901-08
Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands,1 Nijmegen University Centre for Infectious Diseases, Nijmegen, The Netherlands,2 Department of Hospital Pharmacy, The Hague Central Hospital Pharmacy, The Hague, The Netherlands,3 Association for Quality Assessment in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology (KKGT), The Hague, The Netherlands,4 Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands5
Received 8 July 2008/ Returned for modification 14 August 2008/ Accepted 4 November 2008
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
The wide application of analytical methods for azole antifungal drugs requires intralaboratory and interlaboratory quality control (QC) procedures to ensure that these methods have sufficient accuracy, precision, and specificity. Participation in interlaboratory proficiency testing programs is common practice for many infectious disease drugs (1, 4, 5, 8), but such a program incorporating all currently marketed azole antifungal drugs has not been available so far. Therefore, we initiated an international interlaboratory proficiency testing program for the measurement of azole antifungal agents.
|
|
|---|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Concentrations (in mg/liter) of the azole antifungals in the QC samples
|
Forty laboratories from four different continents (North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia) whose scientists have published on the bioanalysis of antifungal azoles were invited to participate, free of charge, in the first round of the QC program. The participants were requested to analyze the samples within 6 weeks after they were dispatched and were asked to provide details about their analytical methods.
Descriptive statistics were calculated after the standardization of all laboratory results to percentages with reference to the true value. The deviation from the true concentration (inaccuracy) was calculated by the subtraction of 100% from these percentages. Concentrations within 20% of the weighed-in concentration were considered to be satisfactory or correct (2). A one-way analysis of variance was performed to determine whether the drug to be analyzed was of influence on the absolute inaccuracies of the laboratories. An unpaired t test was performed on the absolute inaccuracies to determine a difference in the analytical methods. A paired samples t test was performed on the absolute inaccuracies, in order to determine if there was a difference between performances for the high versus low concentrations of PSZ and VRZ. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 14.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All participants were provided feedback on their performance within 3 months after the first rounds' deadline. The results from the other laboratories were reported anonymously.
|
|
|---|
The percentages of correct analyses within the predefined range of 80 to 120% of the weighed-in concentrations were as follows: FLZ, 79% (n = 14 analyses); ITZ, 78% (n = 23); hITZ, 78% (n = 18); VRZ, 82% (n = 57); and PSZ, 62% (n = 26) (Fig. 1). The mean absolute inaccuracy (and 95% confidence interval) for each specific method was 20.74 (12.36 to 29.11) for HPLC, 17.70 (13.13 to 22.28) for LC-MS, and 6.33 (–0.59 to 13.25) for bioassays. No difference in the absolute inaccuracies was observed in the performance of HPLC with UV or fluorescence detection versus LC-MS techniques (P = 0.615, unpaired t test). No comparison could be made with regard to the bioassays since the numbers were too small to make a valid statement. All of the participating laboratories using a bioassay reported adequate values within the 80 to 120% range. Laboratories using the bioassay were not able to measure the concentrations of azole antifungals in the combined sample. A one-way analysis of variance yielded no statistically significant differences between the absolute inaccuracies related to the different azole antifungal drugs [F(4,86) = 0.884; P = 0.477]. All results were correctly reported by 18 of 33 laboratories (54.5%).
![]() View larger version (12K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Deviation from the declared value. The horizontal solid lines represent the median value. The filled symbols indicate HPLC results, the unfilled symbols indicate LC-MS results, and the unfilled symbols with crosses indicate bioassay results. Four data points are outside the axis limits and are not shown in the graph: one laboratory reported ITZ at 17,595%, another laboratory reported hITZ at 126%, and a third laboratory reported 0.30 mg/liter posaconazole at 300% and 3.00 mg/liter posaconazole at 231%.
|
|
|
|---|
The first results of this new QC program of azole antifungal agents show a performance ranging between 62 and 82% and thus clearly indicate the need to further improve analytical methods. The data suggest that in particular, analysis of PSZ, although not statistically significant from the other azoles, requires attention. Inaccurate results may introduce bias in pharmacokinetic studies or may provide a basis for incorrect dose adjustments in TDM.
For a first round, the number of participating labs is relatively high. However, even with this great contribution from all participants, there are some minor drawbacks. Very low and high concentrations outside the therapeutic range have not yet been included so we were not able to elude problems with lower limits of quantitation. Dispatching a combined sample of azoles may provide efficiency in determining difficulties with specificity and/or selectivity; however, this precludes laboratories using bioassays from participation. Sources of error in the current program have not been established. Therefore, no conclusions from this round on the reasons of inadequate performance can be drawn. Future rounds will address potential explanations for these shortcomings in more detail. These future rounds are needed to establish whether the program indeed contributes to the improvement of antifungal azole analysis. The program will also be extended to more laboratories and more antifungal drugs.
We are indebted to (in alphabetical order) Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Inc., and Schering-Plough for the supply of FLZ (Pfizer), ITZ and hITZ (Janssen Pharmaceuticals), VRZ (Pfizer), and PSZ (Schering-Plough).
All authors have contributed to setting up the program and have read and improved the manuscript for publication.
Published ahead of print on 17 November 2008. ![]()
|
|
|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»