% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Morales:303011,
author = {I. Morales and J. Bueggeln and A. Denzler and V.
Sonntag-Buck and K. Börner and P. Chlanda and L. Koeppel
and A. Deckert and T. Bärnighausen and M. Knop$^*$ and C.
M. Denkinger},
title = {{P}erformance and feasibility of self-microsampling of
capillary blood and saliva for serological testing of
{SARS}-{C}o{V}-2.},
journal = {PLOS ONE},
volume = {20},
number = {7},
issn = {1932-6203},
address = {San Francisco, California, US},
publisher = {PLOS},
reportid = {DKFZ-2025-01458},
pages = {e0327821},
year = {2025},
abstract = {Serology is a valuable tool to estimate infections,
case-fatality rates, and immunity. However, venipuncture and
clinical infrastructure hinder scalability. This study
evaluated the performance, feasibility and user experience
of using a microsampling device for self-collected capillary
blood and saliva to determine total SARS-CoV-2 S RBD
antibodies.It included 149 participants with (n = 48) or
without (n = 101) a known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection
and confirmed antibodies. Venous and capillary blood were
self- or professionally collected from all, and saliva was
self-collected by 46/48 participants with antibodies. The
detection of SARS-CoV-2 S RBD antibodies in all sample types
was tested using a high-throughput platform and agreement
was calculated. Intra- and inter-rater agreement between
serum and capillary blood in participants with an unknown
antibody status was also assessed. Participants evaluated
the device's user-friendliness through questionnaires.Among
the 48 participants with known past infection and
antibodies, agreement was $100\%$ $(95\%$ CI: 92.6-100)
between serum and capillary blood (self-collected or
professionally collected). Self-collected saliva had
slightly lower agreement with paired serum samples
$(95.7\%,$ CI: 85.2-99.5). For the 101 participants without
prior evidence of antibodies or infection, serum and
self-collected capillary blood had good intra-rater
agreement and serum and professionally collected capillary
blood had almost perfect intra-rater agreement. Inter-rater
agreement was also almost perfect. While $81.8\%$ found the
self-finger prick easy, $53.4\%$ found using the
microsampler easy. Among those who collected saliva,
$84.8\%$ found capillary blood easier to collect compared to
saliva $(52.2\%).Our$ results show that detecting SARS-CoV-2
antibodies from capillary blood and saliva collected with
the VAMS microsampling device is feasible and yields valid
results. To ensure accuracy and reliability, additional
training in self-sampling techniques may be essential. The
positive user experience further underscores the
microsampling device's potential for scalable
serosurveillance and strengthening pandemic preparedness
efforts.},
keywords = {Humans / Saliva: virology / COVID-19: diagnosis / COVID-19:
blood / COVID-19: virology / Female / SARS-CoV-2: immunology
/ SARS-CoV-2: isolation $\&$ purification / Male / Middle
Aged / Antibodies, Viral: blood / Antibodies, Viral:
analysis / Adult / Feasibility Studies / COVID-19
Serological Testing: methods / Aged / Specimen Handling:
methods / Blood Specimen Collection: methods / Capillaries /
Antibodies, Viral (NLM Chemicals)},
cin = {A260},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)A260-20160331},
pnm = {311 - Zellbiologie und Tumorbiologie (POF4-311)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-311},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:40644438},
pmc = {pmc:PMC12250565},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0327821},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/303011},
}