毛细管干血斑和毛细管微管与静脉免疫球蛋白G常规诊断的比较

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
S.L. Boland , M.J.H. Doeleman , L.G.E. Hofstee , L. Soels , T.S.Q. Visser , S. de Roock , D. Hamann , J.M. van Montfrans , W.M. Tiel Groenestege
{"title":"毛细管干血斑和毛细管微管与静脉免疫球蛋白G常规诊断的比较","authors":"S.L. Boland ,&nbsp;M.J.H. Doeleman ,&nbsp;L.G.E. Hofstee ,&nbsp;L. Soels ,&nbsp;T.S.Q. Visser ,&nbsp;S. de Roock ,&nbsp;D. Hamann ,&nbsp;J.M. van Montfrans ,&nbsp;W.M. Tiel Groenestege","doi":"10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2025.110996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and aims</h3><div>Patients with primary antibody deficiencies receiving immunoglobulin replacement therapy require frequent monitoring of immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels. Capillary IgG measurements from dried blood spots (DBS) or microtubes offer several advantages over samples obtained by venipuncture, including facilitating remote self-sampling. However, the validity of this alternative method is still unknown. We evaluated the comparability of IgG levels measured in venous samples with capillary blood samples collected on DBS cards and in microtubes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Paired venous and capillary finger-stick DBS and microtube samples were collected from 100 patients. IgG was extracted from DBS with phosphate buffered saline and measured with a Siemens Atellica CH. For method comparison we performed Deming regression analysis. Absolute mean bias and limits of agreement were calculated with Bland-Altman analysis. The method comparison followed the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments’ (CLIA) recommended approach, but stricter limits proposed by the EFLM were applied. Relative mean differences were compared to a 10.9 % total allowable error (TEa).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Method comparison of venous versus capillary DBS samples resulted in an R of 0.77. Mean bias was 0.23 g/L with limits of agreement of −4.06 g/L to 4.53 g/L. Method comparison of venous versus capillary microtube samples resulted in an R of 1.00. Mean bias was −0.11 g/L with −0.67 g/L to 0.46 g/L limits of agreement. Relative mean differences were 2.2 % for DBS sampling and −0.6 % for capillary sampling, both fall within 10.9 % TEa and CLIA criteria.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>IgG measurements from DBS demonstrated insufficient correlation and excessively broad limits of agreement, making it unsuitable for accurately determining IgG levels. This result hampers implementation of DBS in routine diagnostics. Conversely, capillary microtube samples demonstrated a strong correlation and narrow limits of agreement, which makes them a viable alternative to venipuncture.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10172,"journal":{"name":"Clinical biochemistry","volume":"140 ","pages":"Article 110996"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of capillary dried blood spot and capillary microtubes with venous immunoglobulin G levels for routine diagnostics\",\"authors\":\"S.L. Boland ,&nbsp;M.J.H. Doeleman ,&nbsp;L.G.E. Hofstee ,&nbsp;L. Soels ,&nbsp;T.S.Q. Visser ,&nbsp;S. de Roock ,&nbsp;D. Hamann ,&nbsp;J.M. van Montfrans ,&nbsp;W.M. Tiel Groenestege\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2025.110996\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and aims</h3><div>Patients with primary antibody deficiencies receiving immunoglobulin replacement therapy require frequent monitoring of immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels. Capillary IgG measurements from dried blood spots (DBS) or microtubes offer several advantages over samples obtained by venipuncture, including facilitating remote self-sampling. However, the validity of this alternative method is still unknown. We evaluated the comparability of IgG levels measured in venous samples with capillary blood samples collected on DBS cards and in microtubes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Paired venous and capillary finger-stick DBS and microtube samples were collected from 100 patients. IgG was extracted from DBS with phosphate buffered saline and measured with a Siemens Atellica CH. For method comparison we performed Deming regression analysis. Absolute mean bias and limits of agreement were calculated with Bland-Altman analysis. The method comparison followed the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments’ (CLIA) recommended approach, but stricter limits proposed by the EFLM were applied. Relative mean differences were compared to a 10.9 % total allowable error (TEa).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Method comparison of venous versus capillary DBS samples resulted in an R of 0.77. Mean bias was 0.23 g/L with limits of agreement of −4.06 g/L to 4.53 g/L. Method comparison of venous versus capillary microtube samples resulted in an R of 1.00. Mean bias was −0.11 g/L with −0.67 g/L to 0.46 g/L limits of agreement. Relative mean differences were 2.2 % for DBS sampling and −0.6 % for capillary sampling, both fall within 10.9 % TEa and CLIA criteria.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>IgG measurements from DBS demonstrated insufficient correlation and excessively broad limits of agreement, making it unsuitable for accurately determining IgG levels. This result hampers implementation of DBS in routine diagnostics. Conversely, capillary microtube samples demonstrated a strong correlation and narrow limits of agreement, which makes them a viable alternative to venipuncture.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10172,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical biochemistry\",\"volume\":\"140 \",\"pages\":\"Article 110996\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical biochemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009912025001250\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical biochemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009912025001250","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的接受免疫球蛋白替代治疗的一抗缺乏患者需要经常监测免疫球蛋白G (IgG)水平。从干血点(DBS)或微管中测量毛细管IgG比通过静脉穿刺获得的样本有几个优点,包括便于远程自采样。然而,这种替代方法的有效性仍然未知。我们评估了静脉样本中IgG水平与DBS卡和微管中收集的毛细血管血液样本的可比性。方法采集100例患者静脉、毛细血管指棒DBS及微管标本。用磷酸盐缓冲盐水从DBS中提取IgG,并用西门子Atellica CH进行测量。为了比较方法,我们进行了Deming回归分析。采用Bland-Altman分析计算绝对平均偏倚和一致限。方法比较遵循临床实验室改进修正案(CLIA)推荐的方法,但应用了EFLM提出的更严格的限制。相对平均差异比较10.9%的总允许误差(TEa)。结果静脉DBS与毛细血管DBS比较,R为0.77。平均偏差为0.23 g/L,一致性限为- 4.06 g/L至4.53 g/L。方法静脉微管与毛细血管微管样品比较,R为1.00。平均偏差为- 0.11 g/L,一致性限为- 0.67 g/L至0.46 g/L。DBS取样的相对平均差异为2.2%,毛细管取样的相对平均差异为- 0.6%,均在TEa和CLIA标准的10.9%之内。结论DBS检测IgG相关性不足,一致性范围过广,不适合准确测定IgG水平。这一结果阻碍了DBS在常规诊断中的实施。相反,毛细血管微管样品显示出很强的相关性和狭窄的一致性限制,这使它们成为静脉穿刺的可行替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of capillary dried blood spot and capillary microtubes with venous immunoglobulin G levels for routine diagnostics

Background and aims

Patients with primary antibody deficiencies receiving immunoglobulin replacement therapy require frequent monitoring of immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels. Capillary IgG measurements from dried blood spots (DBS) or microtubes offer several advantages over samples obtained by venipuncture, including facilitating remote self-sampling. However, the validity of this alternative method is still unknown. We evaluated the comparability of IgG levels measured in venous samples with capillary blood samples collected on DBS cards and in microtubes.

Methods

Paired venous and capillary finger-stick DBS and microtube samples were collected from 100 patients. IgG was extracted from DBS with phosphate buffered saline and measured with a Siemens Atellica CH. For method comparison we performed Deming regression analysis. Absolute mean bias and limits of agreement were calculated with Bland-Altman analysis. The method comparison followed the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments’ (CLIA) recommended approach, but stricter limits proposed by the EFLM were applied. Relative mean differences were compared to a 10.9 % total allowable error (TEa).

Results

Method comparison of venous versus capillary DBS samples resulted in an R of 0.77. Mean bias was 0.23 g/L with limits of agreement of −4.06 g/L to 4.53 g/L. Method comparison of venous versus capillary microtube samples resulted in an R of 1.00. Mean bias was −0.11 g/L with −0.67 g/L to 0.46 g/L limits of agreement. Relative mean differences were 2.2 % for DBS sampling and −0.6 % for capillary sampling, both fall within 10.9 % TEa and CLIA criteria.

Conclusion

IgG measurements from DBS demonstrated insufficient correlation and excessively broad limits of agreement, making it unsuitable for accurately determining IgG levels. This result hampers implementation of DBS in routine diagnostics. Conversely, capillary microtube samples demonstrated a strong correlation and narrow limits of agreement, which makes them a viable alternative to venipuncture.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical biochemistry
Clinical biochemistry 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
25 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Biochemistry publishes articles relating to clinical chemistry, molecular biology and genetics, therapeutic drug monitoring and toxicology, laboratory immunology and laboratory medicine in general, with the focus on analytical and clinical investigation of laboratory tests in humans used for diagnosis, prognosis, treatment and therapy, and monitoring of disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信