ArticleClinical and translational science2026
Measurement of Centanafadine Concentrations in a Pharmacokinetic Trial: Comparison of Traditional Venipuncture Versus Blood Microsampling.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Measurement of Centanafadine Concentrations in a Pharmacokinetic Trial: Comparison of Traditional Venipuncture Versus Blood Microsampling.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In clinical pharmacology trials, pharmacokinetic samples are typically collected via venipuncture by trained staff. However, recent advances in blood collection devices have enabled participant self-collection of samples. Here, we describe the feasibility of collecting dried blood from healthy volunteers using a microsampling device by comparing centanafadine concentrations from self-collected microsamples with those collected via venipuncture by phlebotomists in an exploratory phase 1 pharmacokinetic trial. High-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric (HPLC-MS/MS) bioanalytical methods were validated for both dried blood collected via microsampling and plasma, with all validation criteria successfully met. Concordance between venous and microsamples was evaluated using graphical analysis and Deming regression, based on data from two conventional phase 1 trials (samples collected by clinical staff) and an exploratory pharmacokinetic trial comparing staff-collected venous samples (visits 1 and 2) with microsamples collected by staff (visit 1) or self-collected by participants (visits 2 and 4). Deming regression revealed significant linear relationships between centanafadine concentrations from venous and dried blood samples in conventional trials, and between microsamples at visits 2 and 4 versus visit 1 in the exploratory pharmacokinetic trial (visit 2: self-collected under supervision, slope = 1.135; visit 4: self-collected at home, slope = 0.967). The bioanalytical method used for the measurement of centanafadine concentrations in dried blood collected by the microsampling device was successfully validated, and feasibility assessments resulted in concordance suggesting that it is suitable to collect centanafadine pharmacokinetic samples at home during the conduct of self-collection phase 1 pharmacokinetic trials.
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.