Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2004 May;25(2):105-20.

Interferences in immunoassay

Affiliations

Interferences in immunoassay

Jill Tate et al. Clin Biochem Rev. 2004 May.

Abstract

Substances that alter the measurable concentration of the analyte or alter antibody binding can potentially result in immunoassay interference. Interfering, endogenous substances that are natural, polyreactive antibodies or autoantibodies (heterophiles), or human anti-animal antibodies together with other unsuspected binding proteins that are unique to the individual, can interfere with the reaction between analyte and reagent antibodies in immunoassay. Lipaemia, cross-reactivity, and exogenous interferences due to pre-analytical variation, matrix and equipment reaction also affect immunoassay. Interfering substances may lead to falsely elevated or falsely low analyte concentration in one or more assay systems depending on the site of the interference in the reaction and possibly result in discordant results for other analytes. The prevalence of interference is generally low in assays containing blocking agents that neutralise or inhibit the interference but is often higher in new, untested immunoassays. A wide range of analytes measured by immunoassay including hormones, tumour markers, drugs, cardiac troponin and microbial serology may be affected. Interference in immunoassay may lead to the misinterpretation of a patient's results by the laboratory and the wrong course of treatment being given by the physician. Laboratories should put processes in place to detect, test and report suspected interferences. It is equally important that physicians communicate any clinical suspicion of discordance between the clinical and the laboratory data to the laboratory. The detection of interference may require the use of an alternate assay or additional measurements, before and after treatment with additional blocking reagent, or following dilution of the sample in non-immune serum. It is imperative that laboratories inform physicians of the follow-up procedure and report on the presence of any interference. The establishment of on-going laboratory-physician contact is essential to the continuing awareness of wrong patient results due to interference.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A diagrammatic representation of analyte and interfering antibody-binding substance (I) binding in a conventional two-site immunoassay. By linking the capture and signal antibodies, these multivalent substances produce an assay signal and result in a false-positive analyte value. Reproduced with the permission of Clinical Chemistry from Ref .
Figure 2
Figure 2
A diagrammatic representation of the elimination of interference from antibody-binding substances (I) binding to the reagent antibodies in two-site immunoassays by the addition of non-human immunoglobulins (Ig), which binds to I. Reproduced with the permission of Clinical Chemistry from Ref .

References

    1. Stuart MC. The immunoassay revolution. Clin Biochem Rev. 1992;13:14–21.
    1. Kroll MH, Elin RJ. Interference with clinical laboratory analyses. Clin Chem. 1994;40:1996–2005. - PubMed
    1. Ismail AAA, Barth JH. Wrong biochemistry results [editorial] Br Med J. 2001;323:705–6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cole LA, Rinne KM, Shahabi S, Omrani A. False-positive hCG assay results leading to unnecessary surgery and chemotherapy and needless occurrences of diabetes and coma. Clin Chem. 1999;45:313–4. - PubMed
    1. Rotmensch S, Cole LA. False diagnosis and needless therapy of presumed malignant disease in women with false-positive human chorionic gonadotropin concentrations. Lancet. 2000;355:712–5. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources