ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2025
Interlaboratory comparison of a dried blood spot assay for antiretroviral adherence: implications for clinical application.
Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe active metabolites of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)-tenofovir-diphosphate and emtricitabine-triphosphate-can be measured in dried blood spots (DBSs) to monitor patient adherence. To this end, multiple HPLC-MS/MS assays have been developed. To inform DBS clinical application by characterizing (i) bias between two HPLC-MS/MS approaches (direct versus indirect measurement) to quantify tenofovir-diphosphate/emtricitabine-triphosphate in DBS; and (ii) room temperature (RT) storage stability.
methodsThirty-eight DBS cards from adults taking emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide for PrEP were analysed by UNC Clinical Pharmacology and Analytical Chemistry Core (CPAC) and Colorado Antiviral Pharmacology Laboratory (CAVP) using published methods. Samples were selected from larger clinical trial datasets to represent a wide range of clinically relevant concentrations. CPAC extracts one 3 mm DBS punch using a directly measured metabolite method, whereas CAVP extracts either one 3 mm (emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) or two 7 mm (emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide) DBS punches using an indirect method. Concentrations were converted to fmol/mm². Bias was assessed by CPAC:CAVP concentration ratios and linear regression. Percent change versus time at RT was fit to a nonlinear regression model.
resultsCPAC tenofovir-diphosphate was higher [median (IQR) ratio = 1.60 (1.38-1.75)] correlating strongly with CAVP (r2 = 0.97). CPAC emtricitabine-triphosphate was similar [median (IQR) = 1.08 (1.05-1.20)] and correlated (r2 = 0.90) only for CAVP's 3 mm assay. Tenofovir-diphosphate/emtricitabine-triphosphate RT decay fit a three-parameter exponential decay model (r2 = 0.87).
conclusionsA 1.6-fold bias adjustment is needed for tenofovir-diphosphate concentrations between assays. When punch size is matched, emtricitabine-triphosphate adjustment is unnecessary, otherwise variability confounds comparison. Bias and stability adjustments aid clinical interpretation for real-world application of this adherence monitoring technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.