ArticleFrontiers in transplantation2025
Comparative evaluation of five tacrolimus assays in transplant recipients: implications for optimizing therapeutic drug monitoring.
Article in Frontiers in transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tacrolimus is a widely used immunosuppressive therapy in transplant recipients, but its narrow therapeutic index necessitates accurate monitoring. Tacrolimus levels can be quantified using immunoassays (IAs) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), however, differences between these methods may influence clinical decision-making. In this study, we compared two IAs, i.e., chemiluminescent (CMIA) and electrochemiluminescent (ECLIA), with three LC-MS/MS assays in 181 clinical specimens. When compared with the overall mean concentration, all five assays showed strong correlations, though with variability across methods: three LC-MS/MS assays demonstrated correlation coefficients of 0.9927, 0.9612, and 0.9920, while two immunoassays yielded coefficients of 0.9938 and 0.9857. Deming regression analysis revealed slopes of 0.96, 0.94, and 0.93 for the three LC-MS/MS, while the immunoassays showed higher slopes of 1.032 (ECLIA) and 1.21 (CMIA). Bland-Altman analysis indicated systematic underestimation by the LC-MS/MS methods (-7.5%, -18.7%, and -8%) and overestimation by the immunoassays (ECLIA +9.7%, CMIA +18.4%), relative to the overall mean. The two immunoassays showed only moderate agreement with each other (slope = 0.85, intercept = 0.49), and even the LC-MS/MS assays were not fully concordant. Among 47 patients within 3 months post-transplantation and 134 patients beyond 3 months, clinically relevant discrepancies (≥2 ng/ml) between LC-MS/MS and immunoassay results were observed in 13 patients (28%) and 49 patients (37%), respectively. These findings underscore the substantial impact of assay-dependent variability on tacrolimus monitoring and emphasize the need for standardized laboratory practices as well as assay-specific therapeutic ranges to prevent underexposure with rejection or overexposure with toxicity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.