top of page

Posaconazole

Ordering Info & Methodology

Test Code

Cerner Synonyms

POSAB

Posaconazole Level

Turn Around Time

Methodology

Analyzed within 7 days of receipt.

Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)

Ordering Guide

​

Specimen Requirements

Sample Type

Collection Container

Alternate Collection Containers

EDTA Plasma

Lavender

​

1.0 mL

​

Add on stability
This is the length of time after sample collection that this analyte is stable. Test can be added to a previously collected sample if the time since collection is less than the add on stability time.

Minimum Volume

Add On Stability

Collection and Shipping Requirements

Freeze. Send on ice pack.

Reference Intervals

Female Reference Interval

Age Category
Reference Interval
units
≥ 0 y
See Comment
ug/L

Male Reference Interval

Age Category
Reference Interval
units
≥ 0 y
See Comment
ug/L
Additional Notes

[object Object]

Measurement Uncertainty (MU)
Every laboratory value is an estimate of the true concentration of substance. MU is the 95% confidence interval around that estimate. 95% of the time, the true concentration will be within the range of the reported value ±MU. This value is based on analytical variability (precision) and does not reflect other factors such as sample collection and handling which may also affect the result.

Example

Reported sodium = 140 mmol/L
Sodium MU = 1%
Expanded uncertainty = 140 mmol/L ± 1% or 140mmol/L ± 1.4 mmol/L
Interpretation - the true value of sodium in the sample is in the range 138.6-141.4 mmol/L, with 95% confidence.

6%

Measurement Uncertainty

While the therapeutic range for this drug has not been clearly established, a target concentration of greater than 700 ug/L is currently considered preferable for the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections. For the treatment of active fungal infections, a higher target concentration may be required. Higher concentrations are associated with a greater likelihood of clinical response.

See: AAC 2012 56(6) pp 2806-2813 and Ther Drug Monit 2012 34(1) pp 72-76.

 

bottom of page