HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: clinchem.2004.043869v1 51/3/639    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (7) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ellis, M. J. Articles by Livesey, J. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ellis, M. J. Articles by Livesey, J. H. Related Collections Laboratory Management General Clinical Chemistry Clinical Immunology Proteomics and Protein Markers Endocrinology and Metabolism Automation and Analytical Techniques

Techniques for Identifying Heterophile Antibody Interference Are Assay Specific: Study of Seven Analytes on Two Automated Immunoassay Analyzers

Endolab, Christchurch Hospital, Private Bag 4710, Christchurch, New Zealand

^aauthor for correspondence: fax 64-3-3640-818, e-mail Jane.ellis@cdhb.govt.nz

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

Interference by human anti-animal immunoglobulins, commonly referred to as heterophile antibodies, in immunologic assays is known to be an important consideration for medical testing laboratories (1)(2)(3). Although automated immunometric assays are formulated to reduce these effects, it is unlikely that complete elimination occurs (2), and artifactual results attributable to heterophile antibodies have been reported for some assays (4)(5). Such results often are identified by addition of blocking agents to the samples before assay. A simple sample pretreatment method uses a commercially available blocking tube, HBT. An alternative technique uses polyethylene glycol (PEG) to precipitate immunoglobulin-sized molecules before assay. For both of these techniques, a difference between values for the treated and untreated specimens is interpreted as evidence for heterophile antibody interference.

It is not clear that either of these methods is appropriate for every immunoassay. It is important to know the effect of sample pretreatment on the results of each assay. This has been done recently for HBT and a thyroglobulin assay (4). We examined seven automated analyzer hormone assays, using pretreatments with both HBT and PEG of samples from healthy adults, with the aim of determining the expected change in results post treatment for both techniques for each assay.

We investigated luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), prolactin (PRL), and growth hormone (GH) on the Access2 analyzer and insulin, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and cross-linked C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (ß-CTx; ß CrossLaps) on the Elecsys analyzer. Analyzer reagents and consumables were obtained from Beckman-Coulter and Roche Diagnostics, respectively. Plasma (EDTA) samples . . . [Full Text of this Article]

The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:

				M P Brugts, J G L M Luermans, E G W M Lentjes, N J van Trooyen-van Vrouwerff, F A L van der Horst, P H T. J Slee, S W J Lamberts, and J A M L Janssen Heterophilic antibodies may be a cause of falsely low total IGF1 levels Eur. J. Endocrinol., October 1, 2009; 161(4): 561 - 565. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Fahie-Wilson and D. Halsall Polyethylene glycol precipitation: proceed with care Ann Clin Biochem, May 1, 2008; 45(3): 233 - 235. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Cantor Reason for Limitations of Heterophilic Blocking Tube Use on Certain Beckman Coulter Access Assays Clin. Chem., July 1, 2005; 51(7): 1311 - 1311. [Full Text] [PDF]