4.6 Article

Potential to Use Fingerprints for Monitoring Therapeutic Levels of Isoniazid and Treatment Adherence

Journal

ACS OMEGA
Volume 7, Issue 17, Pages 15167-15173

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.2c01257

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. EPSRC strategic equipment award [EP/P001440/1]
  2. EPSRC [EP/R031118/1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that fingerprint samples can be used to monitor therapeutic drug use with high accuracy. Detection of metabolites can determine sample volume and reduce intradonor variability.
A fingerprint offers a convenient, noninvasive sampling matrix for monitoring therapeutic drug use. However, a barrier to widespread adoption of fingerprint sampling is the fact that the sample volume is uncontrolled. Fingerprint samples (n = 140) were collected from patients receiving the antibiotic isoniazid as part of their treatment, as well as from a drug-naive control group (n = 50). The fingerprint samples were analyzed for isoniazid (INH) and acetylisoniazid (AcINH), using liquid chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry. The data set was analyzed retrospectively for metabolites known to be present in eccrine sweat. INH or AcINH was detected in 89% of the fingerprints collected from patients and in 0% of the fingerprints collected from the control group. Metabolites lysine, ornithine, pyroglutamic acid, and taurine were concurrently detected alongside INH/AcINH and were used to determine whether the fingerprint sample was sufficient for testing. Given a sufficient sample volume, the fingerprint test for INH use has sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 100%. Normalization to taurine was found to reduce intradonor variability. Fingerprints are a novel and noninvasive approach to monitor INH therapy. Metabolites can be used as internal markers to demonstrate a sufficient sample volume for testing and reduce intradonor variability.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available