Clinical Validation of a Dried Blood Spot Assay for 8 Antihypertensive Drugs and 4 Active Metabolites.

BACKGROUND: Drug nonadherence is one of the major challenges faced by resistant hypertension patients, and identification of this problem is needed for optimizing pharmacotherapy. Dried blood spot (DBS) sampling is a minimally invasive method designed to detect and determine the degree of nonadherence. In this study, a DBS method for qualifying 8 antihypertensive drugs (AHDs) and 4 active metabolites was developed and validated using ultra high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS). METHOD: The DBS assay was validated analytically and clinically, in accordance with FDA requirements. Analytical validation was accomplished using UHPLC-MS/MS. For clinical validation, paired peak and trough levels of DBS and plasma samples were simultaneously collected and comparatively analyzed using Deming regression and Bland-Altman analyses. All concentrations below the set lower limit were excluded. Deming regression analysis was used to predict comparison bias between the collected plasma and DBS samples, with DBS concentrations corrected accordingly. RESULTS: The UHPLC-MS/MS method for simultaneously measuring 8 AHDs and their metabolites in DBS, was successfully validated. With Deming regression no bias was observed in N = 1; constant bias was seen in N = 6 and proportional bias in N = 11 of the AHDs and metabolites. After correction for bias, only one metabolite (canrenone) met the 20% acceptance limit for quantification, after Bland-Altman analyses. In addition, amlodipine, valsartan, and [enalaprilate] met the 25% acceptance limit. CONCLUSIONS: A novel DBS assay for simultaneously qualifying and quantifying 8 AHDs and their metabolites, has been successfully developed and validated. The DBS assay is therefore a suitable method to detect drug nonadherence. However, with the exception of canrenone, the interchangeable use of plasma and DBS sampling to interpret drug quantities should be avoided.

Converting cyclosporine A from intravenous to oral administration in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients and the role of azole antifungals.

PURPOSE: Cyclosporine A (CsA) is the most widely used immunosuppressive agent after a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Although recommendations for CsA dose conversion from intravenous to oral administration differ from 1:1 to 1:3, most studies did not consider the role of azole antifungals as an important confounder. Therefore, we assess the optimal conversion rate of CsA from intravenous to oral administration in HSCT recipients, taking into account the concomitant use of azole antifungals. METHODS: We retrospectively included patients from a large database of 483 patients who underwent a HSCT and received intravenous CsA as part of the conditioning regimen and peritransplant immunosuppression. All patients were converted from intravenous to oral administration in a 1:1 conversion rate. We collected for each patient three CsA trough concentrations during intravenous and oral administration, directly before and after conversion to oral administration. RESULTS: We included 71 patients; 50 patients co-treated with fluconazole, 10 with voriconazole, and 11 without azole co-medication. In patients with voriconazole, the dose-corrected CsA concentration (CsA concentration divided by CsA dosage) was not different between intravenous and oral administration (2.6% difference, p = 0.754), suggesting a CsA oral bioavailability of nearly 100%. In patients with fluconazole and without azole co-medication, the dose-corrected CsA concentration was respectively 21.5% (p < 0.001) and 25.2% (p = 0.069) lower during oral administration. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with voriconazole, CsA should be converted 1:1 from intravenous to oral administration. In patients with fluconazole and without azole co-medication, a 1:1.3 substitution is advised to prevent subtherapeutic CsA concentrations.

Drug nonadherence is a common but often overlooked cause of hypertensive urgency and emergency at the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Over 70% of patients who visit the emergency department with a hypertensive emergency or a hypertensive urgency have previously been diagnosed with hypertension. Drug nonadherence is assumed to play an important role in development of hypertensive urgency and hypertensive emergency, but exact numbers are lacking. We aimed to retrospectively compare characteristics of patients with hypertensive urgency and hypertensive emergency and to prospectively quantify the attribution of drug nonadherence. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed clinical data including information on nonadherence obtained by treating physicians of patients with SBP at least 180 mmHg and DBP at least 110 mmHg visiting the emergency department between 2012 and 2015. We prospectively studied drug adherence among patients admitted to the emergency department with severely elevated BP by measuring plasma drug levels using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry from September 2016 to March 2017. RESULTS: Of the 1163 patients retrospectively analysed, 257 (22.0%) met the criteria for hypertensive urgency and 356 (30.6%) for hypertensive emergency. Mean SBP (SD) was 203 (19) mmHg and mean DBP 121 (12) mmHg. Mean age was 60.1 (14.6) years; 55.1% were men. In 6.3% of patients with hypertensive urgency or hypertensive emergency, nonadherence was recorded as an attributing factor. Of the 59 patients prospectively analysed, 18 (30.5%) were nonadherent for at least one of the prescribed antihypertensive drugs. CONCLUSION: Hypertensive urgency and hypertensive emergency are common health problems resulting in frequent emergency department admissions. Workup of patients with a hypertensive urgency or hypertensive emergency should include an assessment of drug adherence to optimize treatment strategy.