Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
School of Life Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Sci Rep. 2023 Aug 10;13(1):13008. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-39674-6.
Dried blood spot (DBS) sample collection has been suggested as a less invasive, cheaper and more convenient alternative to venepuncture, which requires trained personnel, making it a potentially viable approach for self-collection of blood on a large scale. We examine whether participants in a longitudinal survey were willing to provide a DBS sample in different interview settings, and how resulting cardiovascular risk biomarkers compared with those from venous blood to calculate clinical risk. Participants of the Understanding Society Innovation Panel, a representative sample of UK households, were randomly assigned to three modes of interview. Most participants (84%) were interviewed in their allocated mode. Participants (n = 2162) were interviewed by a nurse who collected both a blood sample by venepuncture and a DBS card ('nurse collection') or participants were seen by an interviewer or took part in the survey online to self-collect a DBS card ('self-collection'). All DBS cards were returned in the post after the sample had dried. Lipids (total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides), HbA1c and C-reactive protein were measured in venous and DBS samples and equivalence was calculated. The resultant values were used to confirm equivalent prevalence of risk of cardiovascular disease in each type of blood sample by mode of participation. Of participants interviewed by a nurse 69% consented to venous blood sample and 74% to a DBS sample, while in the self-collection modes, 35% consented to DBS collection. Demographic characteristics of participants in self-collection mode was not different to those in nurse collection mode. The percentage of participants with clinically raised biomarkers did not significantly differ between type of blood collection (for example, 62% had high cholesterol (> 5 mmol/l) measured by venepuncture and 67% had high cholesterol within the self-collected DBS sample (p = 0.13)). While self-collected DBS sampling had a lower response rate to DBS collected by a nurse, participation did not vary by key demographic characteristics. This study demonstrates that DBS collection is a feasible method of sample collection that can provide acceptable measures of clinically relevant biomarkers, enabling the calculation of population levels of cardiovascular disease risk.
干血斑(DBS)样本采集被认为是一种侵入性更小、成本更低、更方便的替代静脉穿刺的方法,因为静脉穿刺需要经过培训的人员,因此对于大规模的自我采血来说,这是一种可行的方法。我们研究了在纵向调查中,参与者是否愿意在不同的访谈环境中提供 DBS 样本,以及与静脉血相比,DBS 样本的心血管风险生物标志物如何用于计算临床风险。英国家庭代表性样本的“理解社会创新小组”的参与者被随机分配到三种访谈模式中。大多数参与者(84%)按分配模式接受了访谈。参与者(n=2162)由护士进行访谈,护士同时采集静脉血样和 DBS 卡(“护士采集”),或者由访谈者或参与者在线参与调查以自我采集 DBS 卡(“自我采集”)。在样本干燥后,所有 DBS 卡都通过邮寄方式退回。在静脉和 DBS 样本中测量了脂质(总胆固醇、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇、甘油三酯)、HbA1c 和 C 反应蛋白,并计算了等效性。使用这些结果值通过参与模式来确认每种血液样本类型的心血管疾病风险的等效患病率。接受护士访谈的参与者中,69%同意采集静脉血样,74%同意采集 DBS 样本,而在自我采集模式中,35%同意采集 DBS 样本。自我采集模式参与者的人口统计学特征与护士采集模式参与者无显著差异。在不同的血液采集类型之间,具有临床升高的生物标志物的参与者比例没有显著差异(例如,62%的人通过静脉穿刺检测到高胆固醇(>5mmol/l),而 67%的人在自我采集的 DBS 样本中胆固醇升高(p=0.13))。虽然自我采集的 DBS 采样对护士采集的 DBS 采样的响应率较低,但参与度没有因关键人口统计学特征而有所不同。本研究表明,DBS 采集是一种可行的样本采集方法,可以提供可接受的临床相关生物标志物测量值,从而计算出人群心血管疾病风险水平。