Ganesh S Moorthy1,2, Christina Vedar1, Kevin J Downes1,3,4, Julie C Fitzgerald1,2,5, Marc H Scheetz6,7, Athena F Zuppa1,2,5. 1. Center for Clinical Pharmacology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 2. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania. 3. Divisions of Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 6. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Pharmacology, Midwestern University; and. 7. Chicago College of Pharmacy Pharmacometrics Center of Excellence, Midwestern University, Downers Grove, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the increasing prevalence of multidrug resistant organisms, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has become a common tool for assuring the safety and efficacy of antimicrobial drugs at higher doses. Microsampling techniques, including dried blood spotting (DBS) and volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS), are attractive tools for TDM and pediatric clinical research. For microsampling techniques to be a useful tool for TDM, it is necessary to establish the blood-plasma correlation and the therapeutic window of antimicrobial drugs in the blood. METHODS: DBS involves the collection of small volumes of blood (30-50 µL per spot) on a filter paper, whereas VAMS allows the accurate and precise collection of a fixed volume of blood (10-30 µL) with microsampling devices. One of the major advantages of VAMS is that it reduces or eliminates the volumetric blood hematocrit (HCT) bias associated with DBS. Liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry is a powerful tool for the accurate quantification of antimicrobial drugs from small volumes of blood specimens. RESULTS: This review summarizes the recent liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry assays that have used DBS and VAMS approaches for quantifying antimicrobial drugs. Sample collection, extraction, validation outcomes, including the interassay and intra-assay accuracy and precision, recovery, stability, and matrix effect, as well as the clinical application of these assays and their potential as tools of TDM are discussed herein. CONCLUSIONS: Microsampling techniques, such as VAMS, provide an alternative approach to traditional plasma sample collection for TDM.
BACKGROUND: With the increasing prevalence of multidrug resistant organisms, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has become a common tool for assuring the safety and efficacy of antimicrobial drugs at higher doses. Microsampling techniques, including dried blood spotting (DBS) and volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS), are attractive tools for TDM and pediatric clinical research. For microsampling techniques to be a useful tool for TDM, it is necessary to establish the blood-plasma correlation and the therapeutic window of antimicrobial drugs in the blood. METHODS: DBS involves the collection of small volumes of blood (30-50 µL per spot) on a filter paper, whereas VAMS allows the accurate and precise collection of a fixed volume of blood (10-30 µL) with microsampling devices. One of the major advantages of VAMS is that it reduces or eliminates the volumetric blood hematocrit (HCT) bias associated with DBS. Liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry is a powerful tool for the accurate quantification of antimicrobial drugs from small volumes of blood specimens. RESULTS: This review summarizes the recent liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry assays that have used DBS and VAMS approaches for quantifying antimicrobial drugs. Sample collection, extraction, validation outcomes, including the interassay and intra-assay accuracy and precision, recovery, stability, and matrix effect, as well as the clinical application of these assays and their potential as tools of TDM are discussed herein. CONCLUSIONS: Microsampling techniques, such as VAMS, provide an alternative approach to traditional plasma sample collection for TDM.
Authors: Lisa A Grohskopf; W Charles Huskins; Ronda L Sinkowitz-Cochran; Gail L Levine; Donald A Goldmann; William R Jarvis Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Alan Abdulla; Soma Bahmany; Rixt A Wijma; Bart C H van der Nagel; Birgit C P Koch Journal: J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 3.205
Authors: Kevin J Downes; Molly Hayes; Julie C Fitzgerald; Gwendolyn M Pais; Jiajun Liu; Nicole R Zane; Stuart L Goldstein; Marc H Scheetz; Athena F Zuppa Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Chad A Knoderer; Kristen R Nichols; Kelsey C Lyon; Megan M Veverka; Amy C Wilson Journal: J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 3.164
Authors: Hector R Wong; J Timothy Caldwell; Natalie Z Cvijanovich; Scott L Weiss; Julie C Fitzgerald; Michael T Bigham; Parag N Jain; Adam Schwarz; Riad Lutfi; Jeffrey Nowak; Geoffrey L Allen; Neal J Thomas; Jocelyn R Grunwell; Torrey Baines; Michael Quasney; Bereketeab Haileselassie; Christopher J Lindsell Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Sara Capiau; Herman Veenhof; Remco A Koster; Yngve Bergqvist; Michael Boettcher; Otto Halmingh; Brian G Keevil; Birgit C P Koch; Rafael Linden; Constantinos Pistos; Leo M Stolk; Daan J Touw; Christophe P Stove; Jan-Willem C Alffenaar Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Jason A Roberts; Mohd H Abdul-Aziz; Jeffrey Lipman; Johan W Mouton; Alexander A Vinks; Timothy W Felton; William W Hope; Andras Farkas; Michael N Neely; Jerome J Schentag; George Drusano; Otto R Frey; Ursula Theuretzbacher; Joseph L Kuti Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 25.071