Herman Veenhof1, Remco A Koster, Jan-Willem C Alffenaar, Stefan P Berger, Stephan J L Bakker, Daan J Touw. 1. 1 Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 2 Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3 Section Pharmacokinetics, Toxicology and Targeting, Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Monitoring of creatinine and immunosuppressive drug concentrations, such as tacrolimus (TaC) and cyclosporin A (CsA), is important in the outpatient follow-up of kidney transplant recipients. Monitoring by dried blood spot (DBS) provides patients the opportunity to sample a drop of blood from a fingerprick at home, which can be sent to the laboratory by mail. METHODS: We performed a clinical validation in which we compared measurements from whole-blood samples obtained by venapuncture with measurements from DBS samples simultaneously obtained by fingerprick. After exclusion of 10 DBS for poor quality, and 2 for other reasons, 199, 104, and 58 samples from a total of 172 patients were available for validation of creatinine, TaC and CsA, respectively. Validation was performed by means of Passing & Bablok regression, and bias was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: For creatinine, we found y = 0.73x - 1.55 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] slope, 0.71-0.76), giving the conversion formula: (creatinine plasma concentration in μmol/L) = (creatinine concentration in DBS in μmol/L)/0.73, with a nonclinically relevant bias of -2.1 μmol/L (95% CI, -3.7 to -0.5 μmol/L). For TaC, we found y = 1.00x - 0.23 (95% CI slope, 0.91-1.08), with a nonclinically relevant bias of -0.28 μg/L (95% CI, -0.45 to -0.12 μg/L). For CsA, we found y = 0.99x - 1.86 (95% CI slope, 0.91-1.08) and no significant bias. Therefore, for neither TaC nor CsA, a conversion formula is required. CONCLUSIONS: DBS sampling for the simultaneous analysis of immunosuppressants and creatinine can replace conventional venous sampling in daily routine.
BACKGROUND: Monitoring of creatinine and immunosuppressive drug concentrations, such as tacrolimus (TaC) and cyclosporin A (CsA), is important in the outpatient follow-up of kidney transplant recipients. Monitoring by dried blood spot (DBS) provides patients the opportunity to sample a drop of blood from a fingerprick at home, which can be sent to the laboratory by mail. METHODS: We performed a clinical validation in which we compared measurements from whole-blood samples obtained by venapuncture with measurements from DBS samples simultaneously obtained by fingerprick. After exclusion of 10 DBS for poor quality, and 2 for other reasons, 199, 104, and 58 samples from a total of 172 patients were available for validation of creatinine, TaC and CsA, respectively. Validation was performed by means of Passing & Bablok regression, and bias was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: For creatinine, we found y = 0.73x - 1.55 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] slope, 0.71-0.76), giving the conversion formula: (creatinine plasma concentration in μmol/L) = (creatinine concentration in DBS in μmol/L)/0.73, with a nonclinically relevant bias of -2.1 μmol/L (95% CI, -3.7 to -0.5 μmol/L). For TaC, we found y = 1.00x - 0.23 (95% CI slope, 0.91-1.08), with a nonclinically relevant bias of -0.28 μg/L (95% CI, -0.45 to -0.12 μg/L). For CsA, we found y = 0.99x - 1.86 (95% CI slope, 0.91-1.08) and no significant bias. Therefore, for neither TaC nor CsA, a conversion formula is required. CONCLUSIONS:DBS sampling for the simultaneous analysis of immunosuppressants and creatinine can replace conventional venous sampling in daily routine.
Authors: Tom C Zwart; Sumit R M Gokoel; Paul J M van der Boog; Johan W de Fijter; Dina M Kweekel; Jesse J Swen; Henk-Jan Guchelaar; Dirk Jan A R Moes Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Herman Veenhof; Job Frank Martien van Boven; Anna van der Voort; Stefan Philip Berger; Stephanus Johannes Leonardus Bakker; Daniël Johannes Touw Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2020-02-28 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Raymond Neil Dalton; Timothy Scott Isbell; Ryan Ferguson; Louis Fiore; Andrei Malic; Jeffrey Anton DuBois Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Joshua Zarbl; Ekaterina Eimer; Camilla Gigg; Gerlinde Bendzuck; Marianne Korinth; Corinna Elling-Audersch; Arnd Kleyer; David Simon; Sebastian Boeltz; Martin Krusche; Johanna Mucke; Felix Muehlensiepen; Nicolas Vuillerme; Gerhard Krönke; Georg Schett; Johannes Knitza Journal: RMD Open Date: 2022-09
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