Feasibility of Patient-Centric Remote Dried Blood Sampling: The Prediction, Risk, and Evaluation of Major Adverse Cardiac Events (PRE-MACE) Study.

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.