Feasibility of Patient-Centric Remote Dried <i>Blood Sampling: The</i> Prediction, Risk, and Evaluation of Major Adverse Cardiac Events (PRE-MACE) Study
Garth Fuller, Kelly Mouapi, Sandy Joung, Chrisandra Shufelt, Irene van den Broek, Mayra Lopez, Aaron Robinson, Shivani Dhawan, Mitra Mastali, Brennan Spiegel, C. Noel Bairey Merz, Jennifer E. Van Eyk
Abstract
Background: Remote patient monitoring can shift important data collection opportunities to low-cost settings. Here, we evaluate whether the quality of blood-samples taken by patients at home differs from samples taken from the same patients by clinical staff. We examine the effects of socio-demographic and patient reported outcomes (PRO) survey data on remote blood sampling compliance and quality.Methods: Samples were collected both in-clinic by study-staff and remotely by subjects at home. During cataloging the samples were graded for quality. We used chi-squared tests and logistic regressions to examine differences in quality and compliance between samples taken in-clinic versus samples taken by subjects at-home.Results: 64.6% of in-clinic samples and 69.7% of samples collected remotely at home received a Good (compared to Not Good) quality grade (chi2 = 4.91; p =.03). Regression analysis found remote samples had roughly 1.5 times higher odds of being Good quality compared to samples taken in-clinic (p <.001; 95% CI 1.18–2.03). Increased anxiety reduced odds of contributing a Good sample (p =.04; 95% CI.95–1.0). Response rates were significantly higher for in-clinic sampling (95.8% vs 89.8%; p <.001).Conclusion: Blood-samples taken by patients at home using a microsampling device yielded higher quality samples than those taken in-clinic.