{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.041050903119868636, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016420361247947456, 'mean_word_length': 5.125628140703518, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative study of two techniques of mycophenolate mofetyl monitoring.

INTRODUCTION
Mycophenolic acid (MPA) requires routine therapeutic drug monitoring.


AIM
To evaluate the suitability of a MPA Immunoassay CEDIA performed on Indiko® analyzer (Thermo fisher) for monitoring of MPA by comparing values obtained by HPLC-UV method.


METHODS
This study was carried out on 114 blood samples collected from renal transplant, using high performance liquid chromatography combined with ultraviolet detection (HPLC-UV, reference method) and the new immunoassay on CEDIA.


RESULTS
The assay was linear for a mycophenolic acid concentration up to 10 μg/mL. When MPA concentrations in all 114 transplant recipients obtained by the HPLC-UV (x-axis) method were compared with corresponding values obtained by the CEDIA® method (y-axis), the following regression equation was obtained: CEDIA® = 1.558 HPLC + 0.49 (r = 0.86). However more significant positive bias was observed (37 %).


CONCLUSION
The data presented suggest that the CEDIA® MPA immunoassay, run on the Indiko® analyzer, over-estimates plasma MPA concentrations. However, CEDIA® immunoassay is less laborious and time consuming than chromatographia techniques.