







































_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
*Corresponding author: E-mail: med.anouar.saber@gmail.com; 
 
Asian J. Immunol., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 71-78, 2024 
 
 
 

Asian Journal of Immunology 
 
Volume 7, Issue 1, Page 71-78, 2024; Article no.AJI.116487 
 

 
 

 

 

 

Interferences in Immunological 
Assays: Causes, Detection,  

and Prevention 
 

Saber Anouar a*, Rajae Hazim a and Admou Brahim a 
 

a Laboratory of Immunology, University Hospital Mohammed VI, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy 
Cadi Ayad, Marrakech, Morocco. 

 
Authors’ contributions  

 

This work was carried out in collaboration among all authors. Author SA designed the work, wrote 
the first draft of the manuscript and managed the literature searches. Author AB revised the work. 

All authors read and approved the final manuscript. 
 

Article Information 
 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/aji/2024/v7i1131  
 

Open Peer Review History: 
This journal follows the Advanced Open Peer Review policy. Identity of the Reviewers, Editor(s) and additional Reviewers, peer 

review comments, different versions of the manuscript, comments of the editors, etc are available here: 
https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/116487 

 
 
 

Received: 28/02/2024 
Accepted: 02/05/2024 
Published: 10/05/2024 

 
 

ABSTRACT 
 

Immunological assays are fundamental tools in modern diagnostics, providing indispensable 
insights vital for clinical decisions and scientific inquiries. However, the reliability of these assays is 
at times compromised by various interferences, casting doubt on the authenticity of results. This 
abstract explores the origins, detection methods, and potential solutions concerning interferences 
in immunological assays. 
Various factors, such as cross-reactivity, sample matrix effects, endogenous interferences, and 
test-specific nuances, can introduce deviations in immunological assessments. Understanding 
these interference mechanisms is crucial for devising effective countermeasures. A range of 
approaches, from implementing interference controls and serial dilution analyses to utilizing specific 
tests susceptible to interference, have been employed for detection. Additionally, advancements in 
technology have enhanced detection capabilities by introducing tools resistant to interference. 
To address anomalies in immunological assays, a comprehensive approach is essential. 

Review Article   

https://doi.org/10.9734/aji/2024/v7i1131


 
 
 
 

Anouar et al.; Asian J. Immunol., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 71-78, 2024; Article no.AJI.116487 
 
 

 
72 

 

Implementing rigorous quality standards during assay design and execution is paramount. 
Furthermore, documenting interference incidents and establishing guidelines for disclosing such 
occurrences promote transparency in academic and clinical settings. Collaborative efforts involving 
researchers, assay manufacturers, and regulatory agencies are integral to driving progress and 
ensuring result accuracy. 
This paper emphasizes the importance of identifying, characterizing, and mitigating the diverse 
interferences present in immunological assays. Tackling the complexities of these interferences 
and embracing innovative strategies are central to refining the precision and utility of diagnostic 
immunology. 
 

 

Keywords: Interferences; immunological tests; cross reactivity; antibody-related interferences; 
binding proteins; matrix; contrary effect. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION  
 
Alterations in immunological assay outcomes, 
known as interferences, significantly                       
impact the accuracy and precision of diagnostic 
results. 
 
Such interferences can either enhance or 
diminish the perceived concentration of a 
targeted molecule, often skewing clinical 
interpretations and research conclusions. 
Specifically, when an interference leads to an 
outcome that appears greater than the genuine 
value, it's designated as a 'positive'                     
interference [1,2]. On the contrary, 'negative' 
interferences denote values that are perceived to 
be lower than they truly are. 
 
The biomedical domain, inclusive of diagnostic 
and research sectors, holds deep concerns 
regarding these interferences. Essentially, they 
represent potential pitfalls that might distort             
the perceived levels of crucial biomolecules, 
including antigens, antibodies, and                    
cytokines, among others. These quantifications                            
play indispensable roles in diagnosing                
ailments, gauging therapeutic impacts,                                        
and navigating the realms of basic                   
research. 
 
Interferences, with their dualistic influence, either 
amplifying or diminishing results, accentuate the 
need for a comprehensive understanding of their 
origins and manifestations. It is paramount for 
professionals in the field to both anticipate and 
address these interferences adeptly to safeguard 
the integrity of assay outcomes. This exposition 
delves into the multifaceted nature of 
interference sources, their mechanistic 
underpinnings, detection techniques, and 
counter-strategies. By navigating these 
challenges, we aspire to bolster the confidence in 
immunological assay results, ensuring their 

clinical and research relevance remain 
uncompromised 
 

2. TYPES OF INTERFERENCES IN 
IMMUNOLOGCAL ASSAYS 

 
Interferences in immunological assays 
encompass a diverse range of factors and 
phenomena that can affect the accuracy and 
reliability of results. These interferences can be 
categorized into several types, each with its own 
unique characteristics [3,4]. 
 
One common type of interference is cross-
reactivity. This occurs when antibodies, designed 
to target specific antigens, exhibit a lack of 
specificity, leading them to interact with 
unintended molecules. Such cross-reactivity can 
arise due to structural similarities between the 
target antigen and other molecules, resulting in a 
false signal. 
 
Another type of interference involves the 
presence of co-reactants and the improper 
specificity of antibodies. Co-reactants present in 
the sample can interfere with the assay, leading 
to erroneous results. Additionally, antibodies 
used in the assay may not be perfectly specific, 
causing them to interact with molecules other 
than the intended target. 
 
Interference can also occur through the presence 
of anti-analyte antibodies, anti-reagent 
antibodies, or anti-animal protein antibodies. 
These antibodies can cross-react with the assay 
components, affecting the assay's performance. 
 

Proteins that bind specifically to hormones, such 
as albumin and pre-albumin, can introduce 
interference in hormone assays. These                
binding proteins may compete with the                        
antibodies used in the assay, leading to 
inaccurate results. 



 
 
 
 

Anouar et al.; Asian J. Immunol., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 71-78, 2024; Article no.AJI.116487 
 
 

 
73 

 

The effect of the sample matrix, known as the 
matrix effect, can also be a source of 
interference. Conditions such as hemolysis, 
lipemia, icterus, and others can alter the 
properties of the sample, potentially affecting the 
assay outcome. 
 

Lastly, the "hook effect" is an interference type 
that occurs when there is an excess of antigen 
relative to antibodies in the sample. This excess 
can saturate the binding sites of the antibodies, 
preventing accurate measurement. 
 

Understanding these various types of 
interferences is crucial for assay development, 
optimization, and interpretation, as they can 
impact the reliability of immunological assays in 
clinical diagnostics and research. Researchers 
and healthcare professionals must carefully 
consider and address these interferences to 
ensure accurate and meaningful results. 
 

2.1 Cross-Reactivity  
 

The phenomenon of interference occurs when an 
antibody fails to accurately distinguish its 
intended target antigen, resulting in a lack of 
specificity. This inherent limitation in antibody 
specificity can have notable implications, 
especially in competitive assays, where only a 
single type of antibody is employed. In such 
cases, interference tends to be more frequent. 
This interference often takes the form of what is 
referred to as a cross-reactant, which competes 
with the marked antigen (AG) for antibody 
binding sites [5,6]. As a consequence, 
interference in competitive assays typically leads 
to a positive interference effect, causing a 
distortion in the assay results [1]. 
 

In non-competitive assays, such as sandwich 
assays, interference can occur due to the 
neutralization of one of the antibodies, whether 
it's the capture antibody or the labeled antibody. 
However, this type of interference is less 
common in non-competitive assays [7]. This is 
because two different epitopes are generally 
recognized by excess monoclonal antibodies, 
providing a higher degree of specificity and 
reducing the likelihood of interference. 
 

Consider, for instance, the context of steroid 
assays where these interferences can originate 
from various sources. Physiologically, conditions 
like pregnancy can introduce interference, 
altering the accuracy of steroid measurements. 
Pathological factors, such as renal insufficiency, 
can also contribute to interference, posing 

challenges in diagnostic settings. Additionally, 
therapeutic interventions like corticosteroid or 
estrogen therapy can introduce exogenous 
elements that interact with the assay 
components, further complicating the 
interpretation of results. Diagnostic 
considerations should also be taken into account 
when addressing interferences, as they can vary 
widely in origin and impact. 
 

In conclusion, the lack of specificity in antibody-
antigen interactions is a key factor contributing to 
interference in immunoassays, whether they are 
competitive or non-competitive. Understanding 
the origins and implications of these 
interferences is crucial for researchers and 
healthcare professionals alike. It underscores the 
importance of rigorous assay design, 
optimization, and the need to consider potential 
interfering factors, whether they are of 
physiological, pathological, therapeutic, or 
diagnostic origin, in order to ensure the              
accuracy and reliability of immunological assay 
results. 
 

2.2 Antibody-Related Interferences in 
Assay 

 

2.2.1 Anti analytes antibodies 
 

Antibodies against analytes, referred to as anti-
analyte antibodies, can be found in the serum of 
patients with autoimmune disorders, such as 
anti-thyroglobulin antibodies in thyroid disorders 
or anti-insulin antibodies in diabetes. These 
autoantibodies arise as a result of the immune 
system mistakenly targeting the body's own 
molecules, including hormones or proteins, and 
can interfere with diagnostic assays designed to 
measure these molecules accurately [8,9]. 
Furthermore, in some cases, anti-analyte 
antibodies can develop in response to specific 
treatments, such as the presence of anti-insulin 
antibodies in patients receiving insulin therapy. 
Additionally, there are instances where 
antibodies against certain analytes are present 
without a known etiology, with one common 
example being macro-prolactin, a complex 
formed between antibodies and prolactin. 
Depending on the specific assay used, these 
interferences caused by anti-analyte antibodies 
can lead to results that are either overestimated 
or underestimated. This underscores the 
importance of recognizing and addressing such 
interferences in clinical diagnostics, as they can 
impact the accuracy of test results and, 
consequently, patient care and treatment 
decisions. 



 
 
 
 

Anouar et al.; Asian J. Immunol., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 71-78, 2024; Article no.AJI.116487 
 
 

 
74 

 

2.2.2 Heterophilic antibodies 
 
The serum of certain individuals may contain 
heterophilic antibodies, which are antibodies 
directed against animal immunoglobulins (Ig) 
known as anti-idiotypes or anti-isotypes (IgG or 
IgM). These antibodies can develop as a result of 
various factors, including contact with animals, 
accidental exposure, medical treatments, or 
certain diseases [10]. 
 
One example of heterophilic antibodies is 
rheumatoid factor (RF), an autoantibody that 
targets the Fc portion of IgG antibodies. RF is 
commonly found in patients with rheumatoid 
arthritis and in approximately 5% of healthy 
individuals. Its presence in serum can lead to 
falsely elevated test results [11-13]. Heterophilic 
antibodies like RF can introduce significant 
challenges in diagnostic testing, potentially 
leading to misinterpretation of results and clinical 
decisions. Therefore, their detection and 
appropriate management are crucial for accurate 
laboratory analyses and reliable healthcare 
outcomes. 
 
2.2.3 Anti-reagent antibodies 
 
Interference caused by antibodies targeting 
specific reagents used in assays has also been 
documented. These antibodies, known as anti-
reagent antibodies, can pose challenges in 
immunoassays. One example is the presence of 
anti-avidin or anti-streptavidin antibodies, 
particularly relevant when the assay 
methodology relies on the interaction between 
biotin and avidin or streptavidin [14]. In such 
cases, these antibodies can disrupt the binding 
between biotin and the respective protein, 
potentially leading to inaccurate test results. 
Detecting and addressing anti-reagent antibodies 
is critical in the field of diagnostic testing, as they 
have the potential to introduce variability and 
errors into the assay outcomes. Developing 
strategies to mitigate the impact of such 
interference is essential to ensure the reliability 
and precision of immunoassays, which play a 
pivotal role in clinical diagnostics and biomedical 
research. 
 

2.3 Interferences Caused by Binding 
Proteins 

 

Some analytes exist in the serum in both free 
(active) and bound forms, with the latter typically 
binding to transport proteins. This                 
phenomenon is particularly relevant for 

molecules like steroid hormones, thyroid 
hormones, and vitamin D. 
 

The transport proteins involved often include 
albumin, pre-albumin, and specific hormone-
binding proteins. The combination of the free and 
protein-bound forms constitutes the total form of 
the analyte. 
 
In many cases, the measurement of the free 
(active) fractions, such as free T3 and free T4, is 
crucial for obtaining accurate results. Maintaining 
consistent in vitro (laboratory) conditions with 
those found in vivo (within the organism) is 
essential for precision. It's also important to 
consider potential sources of interference, such 
as free fatty acids, which can displace T4 from its 
binding protein [15-16]. 
 
To measure these analytes accurately, indirect 
methods can be employed to isolate the free 
form through processes like equilibrium dialysis 
or ultrafiltration. These methods are known for 
their precision and are not affected by anomalies 
in transport proteins, whether quantitative or 
qualitative. They are also unaffected by the 
presence of autoantibodies in the serum or by 
abnormal forms of albumin with increased affinity 
for T4, such as familial dysalbuminemic 
hyperthyroxinemia. 
 
When analyzing total forms, it is necessary to 
completely displace the bound form and prevent 
the tracer from binding to the binding proteins. 
This can be achieved through solvent extraction, 
denaturation of the transport protein, or the 
addition of a competitor that displaces the 
analyte without being recognized by the assay's 
antibodies [17]. These considerations are critical 
for obtaining accurate and reliable 
measurements of analytes present in both free 
and bound forms in serum. 
 

2.4 Matrix Effect 
 
The majority of immunoassays are conducted on 
serum, and these tests are typically                       
minimally impacted by hemolysis, lipemia, or 
icterus. 
 
Biochemical Interferences Significant hemolysis, 
characterized by the release of proteases, can 
have pronounced effects on analytes sensitive to 
proteolysis, such as insulin, ACTH, PTH, 
glucagon, or calcitonin, leading to an 
underestimation of results [18]. Hemolysis, the 
breakdown of red blood cells and release of their 



 
 
 
 

Anouar et al.; Asian J. Immunol., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 71-78, 2024; Article no.AJI.116487 
 
 

 
75 

 

contents into the serum, can disrupt the integrity 
of these analytes, thus highlighting the 
importance of maintaining sample quality for 
accurate immunoassay results. 
 
2.4.1 Immunological interferences 
 
Excessive lipid presence can interfere with and 
alter the affinity of certain antibodies in assays 
that rely on antigen-antibody interactions, 
consequently leading to inaccurate results. One 
such example is the measurement of free 
thyroxine. 
 
When lipids are in excess in a blood sample, 
they can disrupt the reaction between antibodies 
and antigens, especially in immunoassays. In the 
measurement of free thyroxine, for instance, an 
excessive amount of lipids can alter the binding 
between the specific antibody and thyroxine, 
resulting in erroneous results. This 
immunological interference underscores the 
importance of carefully preparing serum samples 
to ensure the reliability of assays and to avoid 
biases stemming from external factors such as 
lipemia. Therefore, it is crucial to follow proper 
sample collection and preparation procedures to 
minimize these interferences and obtain accurate 
laboratory data. 
 
2.4.2 Optical interferences 
 
Many assays rely on a colorimetric principle: 
measuring a specific color at a defined 
wavelength corresponding to the parameter 
being assayed. Any alteration in the color of 
plasma or serum, such as that caused                          
by hemolysis, lipemia, or icterus, can                               
potentially interfere with these                 
measurements. 
 
Colorimetry, a widely used analytical technique, 
is based on the absorption of light by a particular 
substance, resulting in a distinct color. In clinical 
diagnostics, colorimetric assays are employed to 
quantify a wide range of analytes, from glucose 
and cholesterol to enzymes and hormones. The 
accuracy of these assays depends on the 
precise measurement of the color produced, 
typically at a specific wavelength, which is then 
correlated with the concentration of the target 
substance. 
 

However, the presence of optical interferences, 
such as hemolysis (the breakdown of red blood 
cells), lipemia (excess fat in the blood), or icterus 
(jaundice), can significantly affect the color of the 

serum or plasma. This alteration can lead to 
inaccurate colorimetric measurements, thereby 
compromising the reliability of the assay results. 
Therefore, it is crucial to carefully assess and 
address potential optical interferences when 
conducting colorimetric assays, particularly in 
clinical laboratories where precise and 
dependable results are essential for patient care 
and medical decision-making. 
 

2.4.2 Other factors 
 

The interaction between an antigen and an 
antibody can be influenced by various other 
factors beyond those previously discussed. 
These additional factors include pH,                     
protein concentration, and ionic strength of the 
sample. 
 

pH: The pH level of the sample can significantly 
impact the binding affinity between antigens and 
antibodies. Different antibodies may have optimal 
binding capabilities within specific pH ranges, 
and deviations from these ranges can alter the 
binding kinetics. Researchers and assay 
developers must carefully consider and control 
the pH conditions to ensure accurate and 
reproducible results. 
 

Protein Concentration: The concentration of 
proteins in a sample, particularly those unrelated 
to the target antigen, can affect the availability of 
binding sites and, consequently, the assay's 
sensitivity and specificity. High concentrations of 
non-specific proteins can lead to increased 
background noise and reduced assay precision. 
Proper sample preparation techniques, including 
protein removal or dilution, are essential to 
mitigate these interferences. 
 

Ionic Strength: The ionic strength, determined by 
the concentration of ions in the sample, can 
influence the electrostatic interactions between 
antigens and antibodies. Changes in ionic 
strength can affect the stability of antibody-
antigen complexes. Researchers often use                          
buffer solutions to control and maintain the ionic 
strength within an optimal range for the                
assay. 
 

Considering these factors is vital when 
designing, optimizing, and performing 
immunoassays to ensure reliable and meaningful 
results. By carefully managing pH, protein 
concentration, and ionic strength, researchers 
can minimize potential interferences and 
enhance the accuracy and reproducibility of 
immunological measurements." 



 
 
 
 

Anouar et al.; Asian J. Immunol., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 71-78, 2024; Article no.AJI.116487 
 
 

 
76 

 

2.5 The Hook Effect 
 
The 'hook effect,' a phenomenon observed in 
certain immunoassays, occurs when there is an 
excessive amount of the target antigen present in 
the sample [1]. This excess antigen saturates the 
binding sites of both the capture and detection 
antibodies, preventing the formation of a stable 
three-dimensional network in the assay. 
 
In typical immunoassays, the concentration of 
antigens is expected to fall within a linear range, 
allowing for a proportional response in the test 
signal. However, when the antigen concentration 
exceeds this linear range, the 'hook effect' comes 
into play. In this situation, the signal produced by 
the assay plateaus or decreases as the excess 
antigen interferes with the binding of antibodies, 
particularly in sandwich-type assays. 
 
This interference can lead to a significant 
underestimation of results because the assay no 
longer accurately reflects the actual 
concentration of the analyte in the sample. 
Researchers and clinical laboratory professionals 
must be aware of the 'hook effect' and take 
measures to address it when designing and 
performing immunoassays. Strategies for 
mitigating this effect may include sample dilution 
or modifying the assay procedure to 
accommodate high antigen concentrations. 
Properly managing the 'hook effect' is crucial for 
obtaining accurate and reliable results, 
particularly in clinical diagnostics and research 
applications. 
 

3. IMPLICATION OF INTERFERENCES 
 
Medical Consequences for the Patient: An 
erroneously abnormal immunoassay result, 
whether it is falsely elevated or lowered, may 
suggest a pathological condition and can have 
regrettable consequences for the patient. 
Similarly, a falsely normal result can be 
detrimental to the proper management of a 
medical condition [19]. 
 
Unjustified Therapeutic Decisions: Initiating, 
adjusting, or discontinuing drug therapy; surgical 
procedures; initiating or excluding a medication 
protocol (such as renal transplantation, 
chemotherapy, etc.) can all be influenced by 
these erroneous results. 
Consequences in Clinical Research: As insidious 
as they may be, interferences in immunoassays 
often eventually come to light. In some cases, 

they have only been recognized after the results 
they influenced were already published." 
 
Interferences in immunoassays can have far-
reaching implications, affecting both individual 
patient care and the reliability of scientific 
research. Falsely abnormal results can lead to 
unnecessary medical interventions or the 
omission of necessary treatments, potentially 
impacting patient health. In clinical research, the 
discovery of interferences, although often subtle, 
is essential to maintain the integrity and validity 
of research findings. Researchers must remain 
vigilant in identifying and addressing these 
interferences to ensure the accuracy of both 
diagnostic tests and scientific studies [20-21]. 
 

4. INTERFERENCE DETECTION AND 
PREVENTION 

 
Biologists play a critical role in ensuring the 
accuracy of laboratory test results, particularly 
when there is a discrepancy between expected 
clinical outcomes and laboratory findings. In such 
cases, several strategies can be                    
employed to detect and mitigate potential 
interferences [22]. 
 
One approach is to repeat tests using different 
sample dilutions. If the results vary depending on 
the dilution level, it may suggest the presence of 
interference. Additionally, employing different 
assay methods can be a valuable tool. If different 
results are obtained using various methods for 
the same sample, this can signal potential 
interference [23-25]. 
 

Maintaining effective communication between 
biologists and clinicians is equally essential. 
Clinicians must provide relevant clinical 
information to aid in the interpretation of results. 
Biologists, in turn, have a responsibility to 
educate clinicians about the limitations of 
immunoassays and the risks associated with 
obtaining false results. Collaboration between 
these two professional groups is crucial, 
especially when reported results do not align with 
the clinical context. 
 

Furthermore, manufacturers have a role to play 
in ensuring the quality of reagents used                    
in laboratory tests. Rushing new immunoassays 
to market without thorough evaluation of their 
sensitivity to heterophilic antibodies on a 
sufficient sample size can lead to issues. 
Continual improvement and diligence in 
assessing and addressing potential  



 
 
 
 

Anouar et al.; Asian J. Immunol., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 71-78, 2024; Article no.AJI.116487 
 
 

 
77 

 

interferences in assay development are essential 
[26]. 
 

5. CONCLUSION 
 

In the pursuit of accurate and reliable laboratory 
results, the vigilance of biologists stands as a 
crucial safeguard. When discrepancies arise 
between expected clinical outcomes and 
laboratory findings, biologists employ various 
strategies to detect and prevent potential 
interferences. The use of different                             
sample dilutions and assay methods aids in 
uncovering anomalies, ensuring that                         
results truly reflect the underlying biological 
reality. 
 
Equally vital is the seamless communication 
between biologists and clinicians. Clinicians' 
provision of pertinent clinical information 
facilitates a more precise interpretation of results. 
Meanwhile, biologists must educate clinicians 
about the limitations of immunoassays and the 
risks associated with obtaining false results.                  
This collaborative effort ensures that                 
laboratory findings align harmoniously with           
the clinical context, thereby enhancing patient 
care. 
 
Manufacturers, too, bear responsibility in this 
quest for accuracy. The rushed introduction of 
new immunoassays without rigorous sensitivity 
testing can introduce unwanted complications. 
To maintain the integrity of laboratory tests, 
manufacturers must continuously strive for 
improvement and diligently assess potential 
interferences. 
 
In conclusion, the triad of biologists' vigilance, 
effective communication among healthcare 
professionals, and the commitment of 
manufacturers is paramount to ensuring the 
accurate and reliable interpretation of laboratory 
results. The collective effort of these 
stakeholders not only safeguards patient well-
being but also upholds the integrity of scientific 
research, marking a resounding commitment to 
the pursuit of knowledge and healthcare 
excellence. 
 

CONSENT 
 
It is not applicable. 
 

ETHICAL APPROVAL 
 
It is not applicable. 

COMPETING INTERESTS 
 
Authors have declared that no competing 
interests exist. 
 

REFERENCES 
 

1. Sapin R. Interférences dans les 
immunodosages : mécanismes et 
conséquences en endocrinologie. Annales 
d’Endocrinologie. 2008;69(5):415‑25.  

2. Ghazal K, Brabant S, Prie D, Piketty ML. 
Hormone Immunoassay Interference: A 
2021 Update. Ann Lab Med. 1 janv 
2022;42(1):3‑23.  

3. Baudin B, Pilon A. Interférences et pièges 
en immuno-analyse. Revue Francophone 
des Laboratoires. mars 2019;2019(510): 
60‑6.  

4. Caruso B, Bovo C, Guidi GC. Causes of 
Preanalytical Interferences on Laboratory 
Immunoassays - A Critical Review. 
EJIFCC. mars 2020;31(1):70‑84.  

5. Boscato LM, Egan GM, Stuart MC. 
Specificity of two-site immunoassays. 
Journal of Immunological Methods. févr 
1989;117(2):221‑9.  

6. Cobo A, Martín-Suarez A, Calvo MV, 
Domínguez-Gil A, De Gatta MMF. Clinical 
Repercussions of Analytical Interferences 
Due to Aldosterone Antagonists in Digoxin 
Immunoassays: An Assessment. 
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. Avr. 2010;32 
(2):169‑76.  

7. Hainque B, Baudin B, Lefebvre P. 
Appareils et méthodes en biochimie et 
biologie moléculaire. Éd. revue et 
augmentée. Paris: Flammarion médecine-
sciences. (De la biologie à la clinique); 
2008.  

8. Spencer CA. Clinical Utility of 
Thyroglobulin Antibody (TgAb) 
Measurements for Patients with 
Differentiated Thyroid Cancers (DTC). The 
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & 
Metabolism. déc 2011;96(12):3615‑27.  

9. Lupoli GA, Okosieme OE, Evans C, Clark 
PM, Pickett AJ, Premawardhana LDKE, et 
al. Prognostic Significance of Thyroglobulin 
Antibody Epitopes in Differentiated Thyroid 
Cancer. The Journal of Clinical 
Endocrinology & Metabolism. janv 
2015;100(1):100‑8.  

10. Boscaro M, Sonino N, Paoletta A, 
Rampazzo A, Mantero F. Evidence for 
Ultra-Short Loop Autoregulation of 
Adrenocorticotropin Secretion in Man. The 



 
 
 
 

Anouar et al.; Asian J. Immunol., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 71-78, 2024; Article no.AJI.116487 
 
 

 
78 

 

Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & 
Metabolism. Févr. 1988;66(2):255‑7.  

11. Lewis JG, Florkowski CM, Elder PA, Hunt 
PJ. Rheumatoid factor and false positive 
sex-hormone binding globulin. Clinica 
Chimica Acta. Juin. 2003;332(1‑2):139‑41.  

12. Levinson SS, Miller JJ. Towards a better 
understanding of heterophile (and the like) 
antibody interference with modern 
immunoassays. Clinica Chimica Acta. 
2002;325(1‑2):1‑15.  

13. Grasko J, Willliams R, Beilin J, 
Glendenning P, Fermoyle S, Vasikaran S. 
A diagnostic conundrum: heterophilic 
antibody interference in an 
adrenocorticotropic hormone 
immunoassay not detectable using a 
proprietary heterophile blocking                 
reagent. Ann Clin Biochem. 2013;50(5): 
433‑7.  

14. Rulander NJ, Cardamone D, Senior M, 
Snyder PJ, Master SR. Interference From 
Anti-Streptavidin Antibody. Archives of 
Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. 1 août 
2013;137(8):1141‑6.  

15. Nelson JC, Wilcox RB. Analytical 
performance of free and total thyroxine 
assays. Clin Chem. Janv. 1996;42(1):14 
6‑54.  

16. Stockigt JR, Lim CF. Medications that 
distort in vitro tests of thyroid function, with 
particular reference to estimates of serum 
free thyroxine. Best Practice & Research 
Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.. 
2009;23(6):753‑67.  

17. Ekins R. Measurement of Free Hormones 
in Blood. Endocrine Reviews. Févr 1990; 
11(1):5‑46.  

18. Selby C. Interference in Immunoassay. 
Ann Clin Biochem. 1999;36(6):                        
704‑21.  

19. Anckaert E, Platteau P, Schiettecatte J, 
Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A, Smitz J. 
Spuriously elevated serum estradiol 
concentrations measured by an        
automated immunoassay rarely cause 
unnecessary cancellation of in vitro 
fertilization cycles. Fertility and                 
Sterility. Juin. 2006;85(6):1822.e5-
1822.e8.  

20. Rotmensch S, Cole LA. False diagnosis 
and needless therapy of presumed 
malignant disease in women with false-
positive human chorionic gonadotropin 
concentrations. The Lancet. Févr. 2000; 
355(9205):712‑5.  

21. Lindstedt G, Frändberg S. Unreliable 
immunoassays, patients’ safety, and 
clinical research. The Lancet. Janv. 2002; 
359(9303):356.  

22. Temple RC, Clark PMS, Nagi DK, 
Schneider AE, Yudkin JS, Hales CN. 
Radioimmunoassay May Overestimate 
Insulin In Non-Insulin-Dependent 
Diabetics. Clin Endocrinol. Juin. 1990;32            
(6):689‑93.  

23. Swerdloff RS, Wang C. Free Testosterone 
Measurement by the Analog Displacement 
Direct Assay: Old Concerns and New 
Evidence. Clinical Chemistry. 1 mars. 
2008;54(3):458‑60.  

24. Ooi DS, Donnelly JG. More on the analog 
free-testosterone assay. Clin Chem. Mai. 
1999;45(5):714‑6.  

25. Faix JD. Principles and pitfalls of free 
hormone measurements. Best Practice & 
Research Clinical Endocrinology & 
Metabolism. Oct. 2013;27(5):631‑45.  

26. Winters SJ, Kelley DE, Goodpaster B. The 
analog free testosterone assay: are the 
results in men clinically useful? Clin Chem. 
Oct. 1998;44(10):2178‑82.  

_________________________________________________________________________________ 
© Copyright (2024): Author(s). The licensee is the journal publisher. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms 
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, 
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

 
 

 
 

Peer-review history: 
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here: 

https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/116487 


