Clinical validation and assessment of feasibility of volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS) for monitoring of nilotinib, cabozantinib, dabrafenib, trametinib, and ruxolitinib.

Volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to conventional sampling. However, the applicability of VAMS must be investigated clinically. Therefore, the feasibility of at-home sampling was investigated for the kinase inhibitors nilotinib, cabozantinib, dabrafenib, trametinib and ruxolitinib and evaluated regarding the acceptance of at-home microsampling, sample quality of at-home VAMS and incurred sample stability. In addition, clinical validation including three different approaches for serum level predictions was performed. For this purpose, VAMS and reference serum samples were collected simultaneously. Conversion of VAMS to serum concentration was based either on a linear regression model, a hematocrit-dependent formula, or using a correction factor. During the study period 591 VAMS were collected from a total of 59 patients. The percentage of patients who agreed to perform VAMS at home ranged from 50.0 % to 84.6 % depending on the compound. 93.1 % of at-home VAMS were collected correctly. Regarding the drug stability in dried capillary blood, no stability issues were detected between on-site and at-home VAMS. Linear regression showed a strong correlation between VAMS and reference serum concentrations for nilotinib, cabozantinib, dabrafenib and ruxolitinib (r 0.9427 - 0.9674) and a moderate correlation for trametinib (r 0.5811). For clinical validation, the acceptance criteria were met for all three approaches for three of the five kinase inhibitors. Predictive performance was not improved by using individual hematocrit instead of population hematocrit and was largely independent of conversion model. In conclusion, VAMS at-home has been shown to be feasible for use in routine clinical care and serum values could be predicted based on the measured VAMS concentration for nilotinib, cabozantinib, and dabrafenib.

Assessment of systemic and gastrointestinal tissue damage biomarkers for GVHD risk stratification.

We used a rigorous PRoBE (prospective-specimen collection, retrospective-blinded-evaluation) study design to compare the ability of biomarkers of systemic inflammation and biomarkers of gastrointestinal (GI) tissue damage to predict response to corticosteroid treatment, the incidence of clinically severe disease, 6-month nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and overall survival in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). We prospectively collected serum samples of newly diagnosed GVHD patients (n = 730) from 19 centers, divided them into training (n = 352) and validation (n = 378) cohorts, and measured TNFR1, TIM3, IL6, ST2, and REG3α via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Performances of the 4 strongest algorithms from the training cohort (TNFR1 + TIM3, TNFR1 + ST2, TNFR1 + REG3α, and ST2 + REG3α) were evaluated in the validation cohort. The algorithm that included only biomarkers of systemic inflammation (TNFR1 + TIM3) had a significantly smaller area under the curve (AUC; 0.57) than the AUCs of algorithms that contained ≥1 GI damage biomarker (TNFR1 + ST2, 0.70; TNFR1 + REG3α, 0.73; ST2 + REG3α, 0.79; all P < .001). All 4 algorithms were able to predict short-term outcomes such as response to systemic corticosteroids and severe GVHD, but the inclusion of a GI damage biomarker was needed to predict long-term outcomes such as 6-month NRM and survival. The algorithm that included 2 GI damage biomarkers was the most accurate of the 4 algorithms for all endpoints.