Accuracy and tolerability of self-sampling of capillary blood for analysis of inflammation and autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis patients-results from a randomized controlled trial.
Capillary blood
Disease activity
Rheumatoid arthritis
Self-sampling
Journal
Arthritis research & therapy
ISSN: 1478-6362
Titre abrégé: Arthritis Res Ther
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101154438
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 05 2022
25 05 2022
Historique:
received:
02
11
2021
accepted:
13
05
2022
entrez:
25
5
2022
pubmed:
26
5
2022
medline:
28
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) requires early diagnosis and tight surveillance of disease activity. Remote self-collection of blood for the analysis of inflammation markers and autoantibodies could improve the monitoring of RA and facilitate the identification of individuals at-risk for RA. Randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the accuracy, feasibility, and acceptability of an upper arm self-sampling device (UA) and finger prick-test (FP) to measure capillary blood from RA patients for C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and the presence of IgM rheumatoid factor (RF IgM) and anti-cyclic citrullinated protein antibodies (anti-CCP IgG). RA patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to self-collection of capillary blood via UA or FP. Venous blood sampling (VBS) was performed as a gold standard in both groups to assess the concordance of CRP levels as well as RF IgM and CCP IgG. General acceptability and pain during sampling were measured and compared between UA, FP, and VBS. The number of attempts for successful sampling, requests for assistance, volume, and duration of sample collection were also assessed. Fifty seropositive RA patients were included. 49/50 (98%) patients were able to successfully collect capillary blood. The overall agreement between capillary and venous analyses for CRP (0.992), CCP IgG (0.984), and RF IgM (0.994) were good. In both groups, 4/25 (16%) needed a second attempt and 8/25 (32%) in the UA and 7/25 (28%) in the FP group requested assistance. Mean pain scores for capillary self-sampling (1.7/10 ± 1.1 (UA) and 1.9/10 ± 1.9 (FP)) were significantly lower on a numeric rating scale compared to venous blood collection (UA: 2.8/10 ± 1.7; FP: 2.1 ± 2.0) (p=0.003). UA patients were more likely to promote the use of capillary blood sampling (net promoter score: +28% vs. -20% for FP) and were more willing to perform blood collection at home (60% vs. 32% for FP). These data show that self-sampling is accurate and feasible within one attempt by the majority of patients without assistance, allowing tight monitoring of RA disease activity as well as identifying individuals at-risk for RA. RA patients seem to prefer upper arm-based self-sampling to traditional finger pricking. DRKS.de Identifier: DRKS00023526 . Registered on November 6, 2020.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) requires early diagnosis and tight surveillance of disease activity. Remote self-collection of blood for the analysis of inflammation markers and autoantibodies could improve the monitoring of RA and facilitate the identification of individuals at-risk for RA.
OBJECTIVE
Randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the accuracy, feasibility, and acceptability of an upper arm self-sampling device (UA) and finger prick-test (FP) to measure capillary blood from RA patients for C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and the presence of IgM rheumatoid factor (RF IgM) and anti-cyclic citrullinated protein antibodies (anti-CCP IgG).
METHODS
RA patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to self-collection of capillary blood via UA or FP. Venous blood sampling (VBS) was performed as a gold standard in both groups to assess the concordance of CRP levels as well as RF IgM and CCP IgG. General acceptability and pain during sampling were measured and compared between UA, FP, and VBS. The number of attempts for successful sampling, requests for assistance, volume, and duration of sample collection were also assessed.
RESULTS
Fifty seropositive RA patients were included. 49/50 (98%) patients were able to successfully collect capillary blood. The overall agreement between capillary and venous analyses for CRP (0.992), CCP IgG (0.984), and RF IgM (0.994) were good. In both groups, 4/25 (16%) needed a second attempt and 8/25 (32%) in the UA and 7/25 (28%) in the FP group requested assistance. Mean pain scores for capillary self-sampling (1.7/10 ± 1.1 (UA) and 1.9/10 ± 1.9 (FP)) were significantly lower on a numeric rating scale compared to venous blood collection (UA: 2.8/10 ± 1.7; FP: 2.1 ± 2.0) (p=0.003). UA patients were more likely to promote the use of capillary blood sampling (net promoter score: +28% vs. -20% for FP) and were more willing to perform blood collection at home (60% vs. 32% for FP).
CONCLUSIONS
These data show that self-sampling is accurate and feasible within one attempt by the majority of patients without assistance, allowing tight monitoring of RA disease activity as well as identifying individuals at-risk for RA. RA patients seem to prefer upper arm-based self-sampling to traditional finger pricking.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
DRKS.de Identifier: DRKS00023526 . Registered on November 6, 2020.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35614488
doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02809-7
pii: 10.1186/s13075-022-02809-7
pmc: PMC9130452
doi:
Substances chimiques
Autoantibodies
0
Immunoglobulin G
0
Immunoglobulin M
0
Peptides, Cyclic
0
Rheumatoid Factor
9009-79-4
Banques de données
DRKS
['DRKS00023526']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
125Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 25;10(1):20540
pubmed: 33239690
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014 Dec;20(12):2276-85
pubmed: 25248002
Rheumatol Int. 2021 Jun;41(6):1187-1188
pubmed: 33839886
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2018 Sep 1;57(9):1592-1601
pubmed: 29850885
Lancet. 2017 Jun 10;389(10086):2338-2348
pubmed: 28612748
Harv Bus Rev. 2003 Dec;81(12):46-54, 124
pubmed: 14712543
Nat Biomed Eng. 2018 Mar;2(3):151-157
pubmed: 31015714
J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2017 Jun 5;140:334-341
pubmed: 28391006
Drug Test Anal. 2021 Oct;13(10):1783-1790
pubmed: 34346172
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 May 15;8(5):e17507
pubmed: 32348258
Bioanalysis. 2020 Jul;12(13):893-904
pubmed: 32648772
Arthritis Rheum. 2010 Sep;62(9):2569-81
pubmed: 20872595
Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Apr;80(4):518-526
pubmed: 33158877
AIDS Behav. 2018 Jan;22(1):190-201
pubmed: 28831616
Bioanalysis. 2020 Jul;12(13):971-976
pubmed: 32628048
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Oct;61(10):978-82
pubmed: 18468854
Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Sep 6;23(1):233
pubmed: 34488887
Nat Med. 2020 Dec;26(12):1810
pubmed: 33230340
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jul 16;383(3):218-228
pubmed: 32668112
Lancet. 2017 Jun 10;389(10086):2328-2337
pubmed: 28612747
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 5;15(8):e0236775
pubmed: 32756585
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 2;16(9):e0255841
pubmed: 34473717
Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Apr;36(4):707-714
pubmed: 29321111
RMD Open. 2021 Feb;7(1):
pubmed: 33622673
Clin Exp Immunol. 2015 Apr;180(1):11-8
pubmed: 25370437
Z Rheumatol. 2019 Oct;78(8):692-697
pubmed: 31468164
Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Apr 13;23(1):112
pubmed: 33849654
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Nov;36(9):840-9
pubmed: 22971016