AUTHOR=Schmetzer Caroline , Vogt Ekaterina , Stellar Laura , Godonou Elie-Tino , Liphardt Anna-Maria , Muehlensiepen Felix , Vuillerme Nicolas , Hueber Axel J. , Kleyer Arnd , Krönke Gerhard , Schett Georg , Simon David , Knitza Johannes TITLE=Self-collection of capillary blood and saliva to determine COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and health professionals JOURNAL=Frontiers in Public Health VOLUME=10 YEAR=2022 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.994770 DOI=10.3389/fpubh.2022.994770 ISSN=2296-2565 ABSTRACT=Introduction

Being able to independently determine vaccine induced antibody responses by minimal-invasive methods is of great interest to enable a flexible and effective vaccination strategy. This study aimed to evaluate (1) the accuracy, feasibility, usability and acceptability of capillary blood and saliva self-sampling to determine SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and health professionals (HP).

Methods

IMID patients and HP having received two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, self-collected capillary blood (Tasso+) and saliva samples. Capillary samples were considered interchangeable with venous blood if three criteria were met: Spearman's correlation coefficient (r) > 0.8, non-significant Wilcoxon signed-rank test (i.e., p > 0.05), and a small bias or 95% of tests within 10% difference through Bland-Altman. Participants completed a survey to investigate self-sampling usability (system usability scale; SUS) and acceptability (net promoter score; NPS). Study personnel monitored correct self-sampling completion and recorded protocol deviations.

Results

60 participants (30 IMID patients and 30 HP) were analyzed. We observed interchangeability for capillary samples with an accuracy of 98.3/100% for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgA antibodies, respectively. Fifty-eight capillary blood samples and all 60 saliva samples were successfully collected within the first attempt. Usability of both self-sampling procedures was rated as excellent, with significantly higher saliva ratings (p < 0.001). Capillary self-sampling was perceived as significantly (p < 0.001) less painful compared to traditional venous blood collection. Participants reported a NPS for capillary and saliva self-sampling of +68% and +63%, respectively. The majority of both groups (73%) preferred capillary self-sampling over professional venous blood collection.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that capillary self-sampling is accurate, feasible and preferred over conventional venous blood collection. Implementation could enable easy access, flexible vaccination monitoring, potentially leading to a better protection of vulnerable patient groups. Self-collection of saliva is feasible and safe however more work is needed to determine its application in clinical practice.