Assessment of lipemia interference on phenobarbital quantification using particle-enhanced turbidimetric inhibition immunoassay with Dimension clinical chemistry system and comparison to high-performance liquid chromatography
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Assessment of lipemia interference on phenobarbital quantification using particle-enhanced turbidimetric inhibition immunoassay with Dimension clinical chemistry system and comparison to high-performance liquid chromatography
Phenobarbital, an anti-seizure medication with a narrow therapeutic window, requires therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for safe and effective use. Lipemia is a well-known interferent in turbidimetric immunoassays, yet its impact on phenobarbital quantification compared with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) has not been fully characterized. We evaluated the effect of lipemia on phenobarbital measurement using a particle-enhanced turbidimetric inhibition immunoassay (PETINIA; Dimension Xpand Plus clinical chemistry system, Siemens) versus HPLC. Simulated lipemic plasma was prepared by spiking normal canine plasma with lipid emulsion to achieve predefined lipemia indices. Naturally lipemic TDM samples (index ≥ 4; n = 40) and non-lipemic controls (index ≤ 3, n = 40) were also analyzed. Phenobarbital concentrations were compared before and after lipid reduction by double microcentrifugation using both methods. HPLC performance was stable across all lipemia indices, with consistent retention times (5.0 min), accuracy and precision within acceptance limits, and high linearity (R² > 0.999). In contrast, PETINIA had a significant positive bias in lipemic samples, with median bias increasing from 9.1% at index 1 to 100% at index 6. Bias was significantly higher in naturally lipemic samples (median: 74.5%) compared with non‑lipemic controls (1.2%; p < 0.001). PETINIA and HPLC had strong agreement in non-lipemic samples (Passing–Bablok regression, r = 0.99), but poor agreement and proportional positive bias in lipemic samples (r = 0.16; slope CI [1.01, 1.89]). PETINIA overestimated phenobarbital concentrations in lipemic plasma. Microcentrifugation effectively mitigated lipemic interference and improved agreement with HPLC, supporting the use of microcentrifugation in clinical TDM workflows.
AgarwalS, et al. Effect of interference from hemolysis, icterus and lipemia on routine pediatric clinical chemistry assays. Clin Chim Acta2015;438:241–245.
2.
AzevedoCN, et al. Effects of marked hypertriglyceridemia and lipid clearance techniques on canine biochemistry testing. J Vet Diagn Invest2019;31:546–553.
3.
BankstahlM, et al. Is switching from brand name to generic formulations of phenobarbital associated with loss of antiepileptic efficacy?: a pharmacokinetic study with two oral formulations (Luminal(®) vet, Phenoleptil(®) in dogs. BMC Vet Res2013;9:202.
4.
Bilic-ZulleL. Comparison of methods: Passing and Bablok regression. Biochem Med2011;21:49–52.
5.
BlandJM, et al. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res1999;8:135–160.
6.
BornhorstJA, et al. Assay-specific differences in lipemic interference in native and intralipid-supplemented samples. Clin Chem2004;50:2197–2201.
7.
CarusoB, et al. Causes of preanalytical interferences on laboratory immunoassays—a critical review. EJIFCC2020;31:70–84.
8.
Castro-CastroMJ, et al. Removing lipemia in serum/plasma samples: a multicenter study. Ann Lab Med2018;38:518–523.
9.
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Hemolysis, icterus, and lipemia/turbidity indices as indicators of interference in clinical laboratory analysis: approved guideline. 1st ed.CLSI, 2012. CLSI document C56-A.
10.
Çolak SamsumE, et al. Comparison of lipemia interference created with native lipemic material and intravenous lipid emulsion in emergency laboratory tests. Biochem Med (Zagreb)2024;34:020701.
11.
CouriD, et al. Simultaneous quantitative assay of phenobarbital, phenytoin, and p-hydroxydiphenylhydantoin by HPLC and a comparison with EMIT®. J Anal Toxicol1980;4:227–231.
12.
DasguptaA. Immunoassays and issues with interference in therapeutic drug monitoring. In: ClarkeWDasguptaA, eds. Clinical Challenges in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. Elsevier, 2016:17–44.
13.
Dayrell-HartB, et al. Hepatotoxicity of phenobarbital in dogs: 18 cases (1985–1989). J Am Vet Med Assoc1991;199:1060–1066.
14.
de MedeirosPAD, et al. Development and validation of a method for phenobarbital in serum: anticonvulsant pharmacotherapy monitoring. Rev Ciênc Farmacêut Básica Aplic2020;41:1–13.
15.
DimeskiG, et al. Lipaemic samples: effective process for lipid reduction using high speed centrifugation compared with ultracentrifugation. Biochem Med2011:86–94.
16.
Dinis-OliveiraRJ.Heterogeneous and homogeneous immunoassays for drug analysis. Bioanalysis2014;6:2877–2896.
17.
DonnellyM, et al. Narrow therapeutic index drugs: FDA experience, views, and operations. Clin Pharmacol Ther2025;117:116–129.
18.
Eirı́sJ, et al. The effects on lipid and apolipoprotein serum levels of long-term carbamazepine, valproic acid and phenobarbital therapy in children with epilepsy. Epilepsy Res2000;41:1–7.
19.
Fernández-PrendesC, et al. Discrepancies in lipemia interference between endogenous lipemic samples and Smoflipid(®)-supplemented samples. EJIFCC2023;34:27–41.
20.
FrankEL, et al. Performance characteristics of four immunoassays for antiepileptic drugs on the Immulite 2000 automated analyzer. Am J Clin Pathol2002;118:124–131.
GardinerC, et al. A practical method for reducing the interference due to lipaemia in coagulation tests. Int J Lab Hematol2020;42:140–144.
23.
GiavarinaD.Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb)2015;25:141–151.
24.
GreenbergRG, et al. Therapeutic index estimation of antiepileptic drugs: a systematic literature review approach. Clin Neuropharmacol2016;39:232–240.
25.
GriffinS, et al. Cross sectional survey of canine idiopathic epilepsy management in primary care in the United Kingdom. Front Vet Sci2022;9:07313.
26.
International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ICH Harmonized Guideline. Validation of Analytical Procedures Q2 (R2). Nov1, 2023 ed.ICH, 2023:36.
27.
KarinA, et al. Evaluation of hemolysis, lipemia, and icterus interference with common clinical immunoassays. Clin Chem Lab Med2023;61:1035–1045.
28.
KlugerEK, et al. Serum triglyceride concentration in dogs with epilepsy treated with phenobarbital or with phenobarbital and bromide. J Am Vet Med Assoc2008;233:1270–1277.
29.
KwanP, et al. Phenobarbital for the treatment of epilepsy in the 21st century: a critical review. Epilepsia2004;45:1141–1149.
30.
LiJ, et al. Evaluation of the preanalytical interference of hemoglobin, bilirubin, or lipids in therapeutic drug monitoring assays on Beckman Coulter AU analyzers. Lab Med2021;53:172–176.
31.
MinamotoT, et al. Evaluation of density gradient ultracentrifugation serum lipoprotein profiles in healthy dogs and dogs with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. J Vet Diagn Invest2018;30:878–886.
32.
NikolacN.Lipemia: causes, interference mechanisms, detection and management. Biochem Med (Zagreb)2014;24:57–67.
33.
OpheimKE, et al. Particle-enhanced turbidimetric inhibition immunoassay for theophylline evaluated with the Du Pont aca. Clin Chem1984;30:1870–1874.
34.
OpuniKFM, et al. High performance liquid chromatography: a versatile tool for assaying antiepileptic drugs in biological matrices. J Chromatog B2021;1179:122750.
35.
PassingH, et al. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem1983;21:709–720.
36.
PrendesCF, et al. Handling of lipemic samples in the clinical laboratory. Adv Lab Med2023;4:5–27.
37.
RimacV, et al. Implementation of the autovalidation algorithm for clinical chemistry testing in the laboratory information system. Lab Med2018;49:284–291.
SunZ, et al. The lipemia index: an efficient screening tool for identifying IgM paraprotein-mediated interference in the Beckman Coulter AU5800 uric acid assays. Clin Chim Acta2025;576:120430.
40.
ThungratK, et al. Comparison of 3 methods of quantification of phenobarbital in canine plasma: high-performance liquid chromatography, a point-of-care immunoassay, and the FDA-approved immunoassay analyzer. J Vet Diagn Invest2025;37:272–277.
41.
TropfM, et al. Cardiac and metabolic variables in obese dogs. J Vet Intern Med2017;31:1000–1007.
42.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Analytical procedures and methods validation for drugs and biologics: guidance for industry. Department of Health and Human Services, July2015.
43.
van der WeideJ, et al. Evaluation of the cloned enzyme donor immunoassay for measurement of phenytoin and phenobarbital in serum. Ther Drug Monit1993;15:344–348.
44.
XuX, et al. High-speed centrifugation fails to mitigate severe lipemic interference in D-dimer measurement. Int J Lab Hematol2025;47:906–914.
45.
YamamotoT, et al. The effect of phenobarbital on human plasma lipids. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol1989;27:463–466.
