Christel C L M Boons1,2, Lonneke Timmers3,4, Jeroen J W M Janssen5, Eleonora L Swart3, Jacqueline G Hugtenburg3,4, N Harry Hendrikse3,6. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. c.boons@vumc.nl. 2. Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. c.boons@vumc.nl. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To obtain insight into the feasibility of, and the patients' perspective on, dried blood spot (DBS) self-sampling by patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) using nilotinib. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with CML using nilotinib participated in this multicenter observational study. Patients were asked to perform blood sampling by means of the DBS method at home just before drug intake (trough level) and to complete a questionnaire including demographics and five questions on their experience with DBS self-sampling. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (57.5 ± 15.0 years, 49% female) provided 178 DBS samples of which 137 (77%) proved useful in clinical practice. Twenty percent of the samples were rejected because the spot size was too small for analysis. A further 3% were taken at the wrong time. Unsuitable DBS samples were provided by 23 patients. Their educational level was significantly lower than that of patients whose samples were all suitable (p = 0.041). Patients considered DBS self-sampling easy and not painful, and three quarters of the patients performed DBS sampling without additional assistance. Patients' belief in the reliability of DBS self-sampling was moderate to high. It was preferred over venous sampling by 37% of the patients, whereas 39% had no preference. CONCLUSION: DBS self-sampling by CML patients is feasible in clinical practice provided that patients, particularly those with a lower educational level, are adequately instructed about sample collection with emphasis on timing and volume of sample collection.
PURPOSE: To obtain insight into the feasibility of, and the patients' perspective on, dried blood spot (DBS) self-sampling by patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) using nilotinib. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with CML using nilotinib participated in this multicenter observational study. Patients were asked to perform blood sampling by means of the DBS method at home just before drug intake (trough level) and to complete a questionnaire including demographics and five questions on their experience with DBS self-sampling. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (57.5 ± 15.0 years, 49% female) provided 178 DBS samples of which 137 (77%) proved useful in clinical practice. Twenty percent of the samples were rejected because the spot size was too small for analysis. A further 3% were taken at the wrong time. Unsuitable DBS samples were provided by 23 patients. Their educational level was significantly lower than that of patients whose samples were all suitable (p = 0.041). Patients considered DBS self-sampling easy and not painful, and three quarters of the patients performed DBS sampling without additional assistance. Patients' belief in the reliability of DBS self-sampling was moderate to high. It was preferred over venous sampling by 37% of the patients, whereas 39% had no preference. CONCLUSION: DBS self-sampling by CML patients is feasible in clinical practice provided that patients, particularly those with a lower educational level, are adequately instructed about sample collection with emphasis on timing and volume of sample collection.
Authors: Chi Yuen Cheung; Jaques van der Heijden; Karin Hoogtanders; Maarten Christiaans; Yan Lun Liu; Yiu Han Chan; Koon Shing Choi; Afke van de Plas; Chi Chung Shek; Ka Foon Chau; Chun Sang Li; Johannes van Hooff; Leo Stolk Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2007-10-17 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: Alexander Benedikt Leichtle; Uta Ceglarek; Helmut Witzigmann; Gábor Gäbel; Joachim Thiery; Georg Martin Fiedler Journal: J Transplant Date: 2010-06-27
Authors: Richard A Larson; Ophelia Q P Yin; Andreas Hochhaus; Giuseppe Saglio; Richard E Clark; Hirohisa Nakamae; Neil J Gallagher; Eren Demirhan; Timothy P Hughes; Hagop M Kantarjian; Philipp D le Coutre Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2011-12-30 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Francis J Giles; Ophelia Q P Yin; William M Sallas; Philipp D le Coutre; Richard C Woodman; Oliver G Ottmann; Michele Baccarani; Hagop M Kantarjian Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2012-10-05 Impact factor: 2.953
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
Authors: Dianna E B Hergott; Tonny J Owalla; Jennifer E Balkus; Bernadette Apio; Jimmy Lema; Barbara Cemeri; Andrew Akileng; Annette M Seilie; Chris Chavtur; Weston Staubus; Ming Chang; Thomas G Egwang; Sean C Murphy Journal: Malar J Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 3.469
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: Christel C L M Boons; Lonneke Timmers; Jeroen J W M Janssen; Peter E Westerweel; Nicole M A Blijlevens; Willem M Smit; Imke H Bartelink; Janneke A Wilschut; Eleonora L Swart; N Harry Hendrikse; Jacqueline G Hugtenburg Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Christel C L M Boons; Yvonne M den Hartog; Jeroen J W M Janssen; Anthe S Zandvliet; René M Vos; Eleonora L Swart; N Harry Hendrikse; Jacqueline G Hugtenburg Journal: Eur J Haematol Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 2.997