Research Article

*Author for correspondence:

Biomarker Development, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, 220 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

‡Authors contributed equally

Biomarker & Bioanalytical Science & Technology, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, 40 Landsdowne St., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

‡Authors contributed equally

Search for more papers by this author

Joseph Loureiro

Chemical Biology & Therapeutics, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, 250 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Michael T Patel

Biomarker Development, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, 220 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Dmitri Mikhailov

Biomarker Development, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, 220 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Arkady I Gusev

Biomarker Development, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, 220 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:19 Oct 2023https://doi.org/10.4155/bio-2023-0136

View article

Abstract

Background: Alternatives to phlebotomy in clinical trials increase options for patients and clinicians by simplifying and increasing accessibility to clinical trials. The authors investigated the technical and logistical considerations of one technology compared with phlebotomy. Methodology: Paired samples were collected from 16 donors via a second-generation serum gel microsampling device and conventional phlebotomy. Microsamples were subject to alternative sample handling conditions and were evaluated for quality, clinical testing and proteome profiling. Results: Timely centrifugation of blood serum microsamples largely preserved analyte stability. Conclusion: Centrifugation timing of serum microsamples impacts the quality of specific clinical chemistry and protein biomarkers. Microsampling devices with remote centrifugation and refrigerated shipping can decrease patient burden, expand clinical trial populations and aid clinical decisions.

Tweetable abstract

Microsampling boosts #ClinicalTrials accessibility. This study shows collection of serum microsamples maintains a high degree of analyte stability for clinical chemistry and protein analytes. This technology may revolutionize clinical trials by expanding access. #Bioanalysis #HealthTech

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Gul RB, Ali PA. Clinical trials: the challenge of recruitment and retention of participants. J. Clin. Nurs. 19(1–2), 227–233 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Milton S, Mcintosh J, Boyd L, Karnchanachari N, Macrae F, Emery JD. Commentary: pivoting during a pandemic: developing a new recruitment model for a randomised controlled trial in response to COVID-19. Trials 22(1), 605–609 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Van Dorn A. COVID-19 and readjusting clinical trials. Lancet 396(10250), 523–524 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Wan KX, Potts D, Gonzalez P, Smith I, Shi H, Kavetska O. Bioanalytical method validation and sample analysis for nirmatrelvir in dried blood collected using the Tasso-M20 device. Bioanalysis 14(20), 1305–1315 (2022).
CASGoogle Scholar
5. Spooner N, Anderson KD, Siple J, Wickremsinhe ER, Xu Y, Lee M. Microsampling: considerations for its use in pharmaceutical drug discovery and development. Bioanalysis 11(10), 1015–1038 (2019). • Provides comprehensive insight into the utilization of microsampling devices in changing the clinical trial landscape.
CASGoogle Scholar
6. Maass KF, Barfield MD, Ito M et al. Leveraging patient-centric sampling for clinical drug development and decentralized clinical trials: promise to reality. Clin. Transl. Sci. 15(12), 2785–2795 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Goodson N, Wicks P, Morgan J, Hashem L, Callinan S, Reites J. Opportunities and counterintuitive challenges for decentralized clinical trials to broaden participant inclusion. NPJ Digit. Med. 5(1), 58 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Lovett L. Better data, decentralized trials may help fix research's diversity problem. (2021). www.mobihealthnews.com/news/big-data-decentralized-trials-may-help-fix-researchs-diversity-problem
Google Scholar
9. Xing J, Loureiro J, Patel MT, Mikhailov D, Gusev AI. Evaluation of a novel blood microsampling device for clinical trial sample collection and protein biomarker analysis. Bioanalysis 12(13), 919–935 (2020). •• The current study design conceptualization followed from this study as well as the utilization of SomaScan data analysis.
CASGoogle Scholar
10. Wickremsinhe E, Fantana A, Berthier E et al. Standard venipuncture vs a capillary blood collection device for the prospective determination of abnormal liver chemistry. J. Appl. Lab. Med. 8(3), 535–550 (2023). • Liver panel results of venous blood and microsampling devices with different processing/handling were compared.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Gao X, Chen C, Geng D et al. Volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS(R)) in therapeutic protein quantification by LC-MS/MS: investigation of anticoagulant impact on assay performance and recommendations for best practices in method development. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 196, 113895 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12. Ren T, Ren J, Matellini DB, Ouyang W. A comprehensive review of modern cold chain shipping solutions. Sustainability 14(22), 14746 (2022).
Google Scholar
13. Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, Brocco G, Guidi GC. Influence of hemolysis on routine clinical chemistry testing. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 44(3), 311–316 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Wenk RE. Mechanism of interference by hemolysis in immunoassays and requirements for sample quality. Clin. Chem. 44(12), 2554 (1998).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Qin X, Zheng C, Li Y, Lu X, Mao Q. Evaluation of the effect of hemolysis on quantitative chemiluminescent immunoassay results for 10 analytes. Clin. Lab. 67(11), (2021).
Google Scholar
16. Harboe M. A method for determination of hemoglobin in plasma by near-ultraviolet spectrophotometry. Scand. J. Clin. Lab. Invest. 11, 66–70 (1959).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Cookson P, Sutherland J, Cardigan R. A simple spectrophotometric method for the quantification of residual haemoglobin in platelet concentrates. Vox Sang. 87(4), 264–271 (2004). • The spectrophotometric method used in the current study for measuring plasma-free hemoglobin is described in this article.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. MedlinePlus. Comprehensive metabolic panel. (2023). https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003468.htm
Google Scholar
19. Kwo PY, Cohen SM, Lim JK. ACG Clinical Guideline: Evaluation of Abnormal Liver Chemistries. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 112(1), 18–35 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Shrimanker I, Bhattarai S. Electrolytes. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island FL, USA (2023).
Google Scholar
21. Gold L, Walker JJ, Wilcox SK, Williams S. Advances in human proteomics at high scale with the SomaScan proteomics platform. New Biotechnol. 29(5), 543–549 (2012). •• Details of the SomaScan platform are described in this article.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. Lever J, Krzywinski M, Altman N. Principal component analysis. Nat. Methods 14(7), 641–642 (2017).
CASGoogle Scholar
23. Hodge RG, Ridley AJ. Regulating Rho GTPases and their regulators. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 17(8), 496–510 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Justiz Vaillant AA, Qurie A. Interleukin. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL, USA (2023).
Google Scholar
25. Isgrò MA, Bottoni P, Scatena R. Neuron-specific enolase as a biomarker: biochemical and clinical aspects. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 867, 125–143 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Vizin T, Kos J. Gamma-enolase: a well-known tumour marker, with a less-known role in cancer. Radiol. Oncol. 49(3), 217–226 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Liu CC, Wang H, Wang WD et al. ENO2 promotes cell proliferation, glycolysis, and glucocorticoid-resistance in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 46(4), 1525–1535 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Turchiano M, Nguyen C, Fierman A, Lifshitz M, Convit A. Impact of blood sample collection and processing methods on glucose levels in community outreach studies. J. Environ. Public Health 2013, 256151 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Williams KJ, Lutman J, Mccaughey C, Fischer SK. Assessment of low volume sampling technologies: utility in nonclinical and clinical studies. Bioanalysis 13(9), 679–691 (2021).
CASGoogle Scholar
30. Scuderi C, Parker S, Jacks M et al. Fingerprick microsampling methods can replace venepuncture for simultaneous therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus, mycophenolic acid, and prednisolone concentrations in adult kidney transplant patients. Ther. Drug Monit. 45(1), 69–78 (2023).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31. Baillargeon KR, Mace CR. Microsampling tools for collecting, processing, and storing blood at the point-of-care. Bioeng. Transl. Med. 8(2), e10476 (2023).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Noble LD, Dixon C, Moran A et al. Painless capillary blood collection: a rapid evaluation of the Onflow Device. Diagnostics (Basel) 13(10), 1–14 (2023).
Google Scholar
33. King ER, Garrett HE, Abernathy H et al. Comparison of capillary blood self-collection using the Tasso-SST device with venous phlebotomy for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurement. MedRxiv doi:10.1101/2023.03.13.23286935 (2023).
Google Scholar
34. Silliman E, Chung EH, Fitzpatrick E et al. Evaluation of at-home serum anti-Mullerian hormone testing: a head-to-head comparison study. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 20(1), 131 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Boyarsky BJ, Werbel WA, Avery RK et al. Antibody response to 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine series in solid organ transplant recipients. JAMA 325(21), 2204–2206 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36. Pernet O, Balog S, Kawaguchi ES et al. Quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 binding antibody levels to assess infection and vaccine-induced immunity using WHO standards. Microbiol. Spectr. 11(1), e0370922 (2023).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 15, No. 21

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 237 times

History

Received 13 July 2023

Accepted 12 September 2023

Published online 19 October 2023

Published in print November 2023

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.future-science.com/doi/suppl/10.4155/bio-2023-0136

Author contributions

CG Rapp, MT Patel, D Mikhailov and AI Gusev conceptualized the project and designed the study. CG Rapp was responsible for study planning and execution. D Lee acquired the study after execution. J Loureiro conducted all SomaScan data analysis. CG Rapp conducted all hemolysis quantification and Chem-14 experiments. J Loureiro and D Lee conducted data interpretation for SomaScan. CG Rapp, D Lee, J Loureiro and D Mikhailov conducted data interpretation for Chem-14 and hemolysis data. D Lee, CG Rapp, J Loureiro, MT Patel, D Mikhailov and AI Gusev were responsible for the drafting and revision of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Lili Yu and Arvind Kinhikar for their technical assistance and Jinming Xing for contributing to the study design. Furthermore, the authors are grateful to Gary Fujimoto, for support in facilitating IRB approval and Jennifer Vitagliano and Migena Pane for their direct clinical support in the conduct of the study. The authors also thank Tim Richards for providing insightful discussions and device training. Finally, thanks to NS, RR and DR for their valuable contributions to the discussion.

Financial disclosure

The authors have no financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Competing interests disclosure

Novartis is among the investors of YourBioHealth and provided financing to the company and is among YourBioHealth board members. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Writing disclosure

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Ethical disclosure

The clinical protocol and informed consent form were approved by Institutional Review Boards before patient recruitment, and each patient provided written informed consent before enrollment. The clinical study was conducted in accordance with consensus ethics principles derived from international ethics guidelines, including the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonization E6 Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (ICH GCP E6).

PDF download

Decentralized clinical trial design using blood microsampling technology for serum bioanalysis

Abstract

Tweetable abstract

References