R Kettlitz, J Ortmann, T Kerrinnes, J J Ott, S Castell
{"title":"HemaSpot HF自采血液检测破伤风梭菌毒素IgG的可行性。","authors":"R Kettlitz, J Ortmann, T Kerrinnes, J J Ott, S Castell","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-06674-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Health research in humans often requires biosamples, e.g. blood. However, collecting venous blood samples poses multiple logistic challenges and needs to be carried by practitioners at study centres. Using self-collected samples of dried blood spots is an attractive alternative, but its feasibility remains to be determined. We investigated the feasibility (including acceptance) of a self-sampling device called HemaSpot HF (HS) employing the use case of anti-Clostridium tetani toxin IgG detection among 154 volunteers. Of those, n = 49 underwent an additional venous blood puncture (VBP) by medical staff (gold standard) as and control for user errors, which were determined by adding serum on HS filter paper (HemaForm (HF)). Antibody concentrations were analysed via ELISA and the serological status was determined using different cut-off values (COV). Most participants (85%) found the self-sampling using the HS device (fully) acceptable. Sensitivity for HS ranged from 70% (95% CI 0.55; 0.83; COV: 1.0 lU/mL) to 100% (95% CI 0.93; 1.00; COV: 0.01 and 0.1 lU/mL), and for HF 85% (95% CI 0.72; 0.94; 1.0 lU/mL) to 100% (95% CI 0.93; 1.00; COV: 0.01 and 0.1 lU/mL). The correlation between HS and VBP was r<sub>Pearson</sub> = 0.73 (95% CI 0.56; 0.83), and between HF and VBP r<sub>Pearson</sub> = 0.81 (95% CI 0.69; 0.89). The average difference in antibody concentration between HS and VBP was 1.1 IU/mL (Bland-Altman plots) and increased with the IgG concentration. Therefore, despite high acceptability, self-sampling with HS needs further improvement to be a reliable alternative to VBP.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"23693"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12223160/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility of blood self-sampling with HemaSpot HF for Anti-Clostridium tetani Toxin IgG detection.\",\"authors\":\"R Kettlitz, J Ortmann, T Kerrinnes, J J Ott, S Castell\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41598-025-06674-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Health research in humans often requires biosamples, e.g. blood. However, collecting venous blood samples poses multiple logistic challenges and needs to be carried by practitioners at study centres. Using self-collected samples of dried blood spots is an attractive alternative, but its feasibility remains to be determined. We investigated the feasibility (including acceptance) of a self-sampling device called HemaSpot HF (HS) employing the use case of anti-Clostridium tetani toxin IgG detection among 154 volunteers. Of those, n = 49 underwent an additional venous blood puncture (VBP) by medical staff (gold standard) as and control for user errors, which were determined by adding serum on HS filter paper (HemaForm (HF)). Antibody concentrations were analysed via ELISA and the serological status was determined using different cut-off values (COV). Most participants (85%) found the self-sampling using the HS device (fully) acceptable. Sensitivity for HS ranged from 70% (95% CI 0.55; 0.83; COV: 1.0 lU/mL) to 100% (95% CI 0.93; 1.00; COV: 0.01 and 0.1 lU/mL), and for HF 85% (95% CI 0.72; 0.94; 1.0 lU/mL) to 100% (95% CI 0.93; 1.00; COV: 0.01 and 0.1 lU/mL). The correlation between HS and VBP was r<sub>Pearson</sub> = 0.73 (95% CI 0.56; 0.83), and between HF and VBP r<sub>Pearson</sub> = 0.81 (95% CI 0.69; 0.89). The average difference in antibody concentration between HS and VBP was 1.1 IU/mL (Bland-Altman plots) and increased with the IgG concentration. Therefore, despite high acceptability, self-sampling with HS needs further improvement to be a reliable alternative to VBP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"23693\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12223160/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-06674-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-06674-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
人体健康研究通常需要生物样本,例如血液。然而,收集静脉血样本带来了多重后勤挑战,需要由研究中心的从业人员进行。使用自己收集的干血点样本是一个有吸引力的选择,但其可行性仍有待确定。我们以154名志愿者为研究对象,采用抗破伤风梭菌毒素IgG检测用例,探讨了HemaSpot HF (HS)自采样装置的可行性(包括可接受性)。其中,n = 49人接受了医务人员(金标准)的额外静脉血穿刺(VBP),作为用户错误的对照,通过在HS滤纸上添加血清(HemaForm (HF))来确定。ELISA法检测抗体浓度,采用不同临界值(COV)测定血清学状态。大多数参与者(85%)认为使用HS装置的自抽样(完全)可以接受。HS的敏感性为70% (95% CI 0.55;0.83;COV: 1.0 lU/mL)至100% (95% CI 0.93;1.00;COV分别为0.01和0.1 lU/mL), HF为85% (95% CI 0.72;0.94;1.0 lU/mL)至100% (95% CI 0.93;1.00;COV分别为0.01和0.1 lU/mL)。HS与VBP的相关性为rPearson = 0.73 (95% CI 0.56;0.83),心衰和心室压rPearson = 0.81 (95% CI 0.69;0.89)。HS与VBP抗体浓度的平均差异为1.1 IU/mL (Bland-Altman图),且随IgG浓度的增加而增加。因此,尽管HS的可接受性很高,但要成为VBP的可靠替代方法,还需要进一步改进。
Feasibility of blood self-sampling with HemaSpot HF for Anti-Clostridium tetani Toxin IgG detection.
Health research in humans often requires biosamples, e.g. blood. However, collecting venous blood samples poses multiple logistic challenges and needs to be carried by practitioners at study centres. Using self-collected samples of dried blood spots is an attractive alternative, but its feasibility remains to be determined. We investigated the feasibility (including acceptance) of a self-sampling device called HemaSpot HF (HS) employing the use case of anti-Clostridium tetani toxin IgG detection among 154 volunteers. Of those, n = 49 underwent an additional venous blood puncture (VBP) by medical staff (gold standard) as and control for user errors, which were determined by adding serum on HS filter paper (HemaForm (HF)). Antibody concentrations were analysed via ELISA and the serological status was determined using different cut-off values (COV). Most participants (85%) found the self-sampling using the HS device (fully) acceptable. Sensitivity for HS ranged from 70% (95% CI 0.55; 0.83; COV: 1.0 lU/mL) to 100% (95% CI 0.93; 1.00; COV: 0.01 and 0.1 lU/mL), and for HF 85% (95% CI 0.72; 0.94; 1.0 lU/mL) to 100% (95% CI 0.93; 1.00; COV: 0.01 and 0.1 lU/mL). The correlation between HS and VBP was rPearson = 0.73 (95% CI 0.56; 0.83), and between HF and VBP rPearson = 0.81 (95% CI 0.69; 0.89). The average difference in antibody concentration between HS and VBP was 1.1 IU/mL (Bland-Altman plots) and increased with the IgG concentration. Therefore, despite high acceptability, self-sampling with HS needs further improvement to be a reliable alternative to VBP.
期刊介绍:
We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections.
Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021).
•Engineering
Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live.
•Physical sciences
Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.
•Earth and environmental sciences
Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems.
•Biological sciences
Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants.
•Health sciences
The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.