ArticleThe AAPS journal2025
Case Studies on the Use of Patient-centric Sampling for Clinical Studies in Pharmaceutical Drug Development.
Article in The AAPS journal, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current gold standard of blood sample collection in clinical trials involves venous draws performed by trained phlebotomists in clinical settings. However, recent technological advancements have enabled the emergence of patient-centric sampling (PCS) methods, offering more flexible and accessible alternatives. This paper examines the motivation behind the pharmaceutical industry's growing interest in PCS devices and explores their application in drug development through seven case studies. The case studies highlight the benefits and practical challenges of PCS strategies, including remote (at-home) sample collection, use in pediatric populations, advantages during COVID-19 pandemic, and implementation across trials involving small molecules, biotherapeutics, biomarkers and vaccines. Several studies assess the concordance between traditional venous sampling and PCS methods, while also addressing logistical considerations for remote sampling with and without nurse support. A central theme across the case studies is the importance of designing trials that prioritize patient convenience and engagement. Examples such as an early-phase asthma trial exemplify how PCS can enhance study design. The findings underscore the clear advantages of PCS in improving trial recruitment, increasing participant diversity, minimizing discomfort, reducing sample volumes and enhancing operational efficiency. The paper provides practical insights and recent examples to guide the integration of PCS technologies into clinical trial protocols, emphasizing the value of early planning and strategic implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40830292What 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.