Application of non-contact hematocrit prediction technologies to overcome hematocrit effects on immunosuppressant quantification from dried blood spots

Deprez, Sigrid; Heughebaert, Liesl; Boffel, Laura; Stove, Christophe

doi:10.1016/j.talanta.2022.124111

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 32 , 64 Additionally, use of non‐contact Hct prediction strategies such as NIR and UV/VIS spectroscopy coupled to an automated DBS workflow was found to adequately correct for Hct effect in determining IMS concentrations. 114 In contrast, for the simultaneous monitoring of tacrolimus and kidney functioning using creatinine, VAMS was found to be the preferred single sampling option compared to DBS, as only 69.4% of paired samples with DBS were within ±15% as opposed to 81.6% with VAMS. 63 Additionally, Leino et al also validated the application of TASSO‐M20 for the quantitative bioanalysis of tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid.…”

Section: Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Studies conducted by Paniagua‐González et al and Zwart et al in liver or renal transplant patients, respectively, found that although DBS and VAMS, after a concentration correction, provided comparable results to conventional whole‐blood tacrolimus and plasma mycophenolic acid measurements, DBS performed better than VAMS in terms of clinical performance (98.7% of paired samples within ±20% difference as opposed to 71.1% of VAMS paired samples), sample quality (1 sample discarded as opposed to 9 VAMS samples due to poor sample quality) and costs (7 times lower than Mitra device) 32,64 . Additionally, use of non‐contact Hct prediction strategies such as NIR and UV/VIS spectroscopy coupled to an automated DBS workflow was found to adequately correct for Hct effect in determining IMS concentrations 114 . In contrast, for the simultaneous monitoring of tacrolimus and kidney functioning using creatinine, VAMS was found to be the preferred single sampling option compared to DBS, as only 69.4% of paired samples with DBS were within ±15% as opposed to 81.6% with VAMS 63 .…”

Section: Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Blood microsampling technologies: Innovations and applications in 2022

Thangavelu

Wouters

Kindt

et al. 2023

Analytical Science Advances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the development of highly sensitive bioanalytical techniques, the volume of samples necessary for accurate analysis has reduced. Microsampling, the process of obtaining small amounts of blood, has thus gained popularity as it offers minimal‐invasiveness, reduced logistical costs and biohazard risks while simultaneously showing increased sample stability and a potential for the decentralization of the approach and at‐home self‐sampling. Although the benefits of microsampling have been recognised, its adoption in clinical practice has been slow. Several microsampling technologies and devices are currently available and employed in research studies for various biomedical applications. This review provides an overview of the state‐of‐the‐art in microsampling technology with a focus on the latest developments and advancements in the field of microsampling. Research published in the year 2022, including studies (i) developing strategies for the quantitation of analytes in microsamples and (ii) bridging and comparing the interchangeability between matrices and choice of technology for a given application, is reviewed to assess the advantages, challenges and limitations of the current state of microsampling. Successful implementation of microsampling in routine clinical care requires continued efforts for standardization and harmonization. Microsampling has been shown to facilitate data‐rich studies and a patient‐centric approach to healthcare and is foreseen to play a central role in the future digital revolution of healthcare through continuous monitoring to improve the quality of life.

show abstract