| Title |
Clinical validation study of dried blood spot for determining everolimus concentration in patients with cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00228-017-2394-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. E. C. A. B. Willemsen, L. M. Knapen, Y. M. de Beer, R. J. M. Brüggemann, S. Croes, C. M. L. van Herpen, N. P. van Erp |
| Abstract |
Everolimus treatment is seriously hampered by its toxicity profile. As a relationship between everolimus exposure and effectiveness and toxicity has been established, early and ongoing concentration measurement can be key to individualize the dose and optimize treatment outcomes. Dried blood spot (DBS) facilitates sampling at a patients' home and thereby eases dose individualization. The aim of this study is to determine the agreement and predictive performance of DBS compared to whole blood (WB) to measure everolimus concentrations in cancer patients. Paired DBS and WB samples were collected in 22 cancer patients treated with everolimus and analyzed using UPLC-MS/MS. Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok analysis were used to determine method agreement. Limits of clinical relevance were set at a difference of ± 25%, as this would lead to a different dosing advice. Using DBS concentration and Passing-Bablok regression analysis, WB concentrations were predicted. Samples of 20 patients were suitable for analysis. Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean ratio of everolimus WB to DBS concentrations of 0.90, with 95% of data points within limits of clinical relevance. Passing-Bablok regression of DBS compared to WB revealed no constant bias (intercept 0.02; 95% CI 0.93-1.35) and a small proportional bias (slope 0.89; 95% CI 0.76-0.99). Predicted concentrations showed low bias and imprecision and 90% of samples had an absolute percentage prediction error of < 20%. DBS is a valid method to determine everolimus concentrations in cancer patients. This can especially be of value for early recognition of over- or underexposure to enable dose adaptations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 43% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 22% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 19% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,972,612
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#773
of 2,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,527
of 439,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#15
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.