Literature DB >> 23296096

Clinical validation of dried blood spot sampling in therapeutic drug monitoring of ciclosporin A in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients: direct comparison between capillary and venous sampling.

Abraham J Wilhelm1, Adinda Klijn, Jeroen C G den Burger, Otto J Visser, Agnes I Veldkamp, Jeroen J W M Janssen, Eleonora L Swart.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The immunosuppressive drug ciclosporin A has a narrow therapeutic window and a large inter- and intraindividual pharmacokinetic variability. Therapeutic drug monitoring of ciclosporin is usually performed in ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid blood, obtained by venous sampling. Dried blood spot sampling (DBS) could be a useful alternative sampling method, which also easily allows multiple sampling, for example, for obtaining area under the curve. With DBS, capillary blood is obtained from a finger prick with an automatic lancet by the patients themselves, and the drop of blood is applied to sampling paper. This may limit the number and duration of hospital visits for these patients.
METHODS: We describe a validation study in which venous and finger prick blood samples were collected at the same time. Venous sampling was performed by venipuncture, and the ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid blood samples were collected and stored at 4°C until analysis. Finger prick blood samples were collected using an automatic lancing device. The volume of the blood drops of patients was approximately 30 μL, and blood spots of about 10-mm diameter were produced. Paper disks with a diameter of 8 mm were punched out with an electromagnetic-driven hole puncher. DBS was compared with the routine assay in venous blood. The study population consisted of adult patients (18 years or older) who were treated with ciclosporin A and routinely monitored for adequate blood concentrations.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight duplicate dried blood spots and venous samples were studied. Using weighted Deming regression, the slope was 1.01 with a standard error of 0.03 associated with an intercept of -9.0 (standard error = 5.9). These results indicate that there is no significant difference between the 2 sampling methods. For the medical decision level of 300 mcg/L, the bias was -4.7 mcg/L with a 95% confidence interval of -19.2 to 9.8 mcg/L. The Altman-Bland plot showed no difference between the 2 sampling methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that DBS is a valid alternative for conventional venous sampling in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23296096     DOI: 10.1097/FTD.0b013e31827d76ce

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ther Drug Monit        ISSN: 0163-4356            Impact factor:   3.681


  5 in total

1.  Clinical validation of a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method for the quantification of calcineurin and mTOR inhibitors in dried matrix on paper discs.

Authors:  Ignacio Guillermo Bressán; María Isabel Giménez; Susana Francisca Llesuy
Journal:  J Mass Spectrom Adv Clin Lab       Date:  2022-06-04

Review 2.  Therapeutic drug monitoring by dried blood spot: progress to date and future directions.

Authors:  Abraham J Wilhelm; Jeroen C G den Burger; Eleonora L Swart
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 6.447

3.  Study protocol of the RAND-study: a multicenter, prospective cohort study investigating response and adherence to nilotinib treatment in chronic myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  Christel C L M Boons; Eleonora L Swart; Lonneke Timmers; Peter M van de Ven; Jeroen J W M Janssen; Jacqueline G Hugtenburg
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 4.430

4.  Land O'Lakes Workshop on Microsampling: Enabling Broader Adoption.

Authors:  Enaksha R Wickremsinhe; Qin C Ji; Carol R Gleason; Melanie Anderson; Brian P Booth
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 4.009

5.  Clinical Value of Emerging Bioanalytical Methods for Drug Measurements: A Scoping Review of Their Applicability for Medication Adherence and Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.

Authors:  Tanja R Zijp; Zamrotul Izzah; Daan J Touw; Job F M van Boven; Christoffer Åberg; C Tji Gan; Stephan J L Bakker
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 9.546

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.