4.5 Article

A pilot study: Validation of dried blood spots (DBS) to assess SARS-CoV2 IgG antibody immunoassays in underserved minority population

期刊

HELIYON
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14729

关键词

SARS-CoV2 IgG; COVID-19; Dried blood spots; IgG antibody immunoassays

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Underserved, low-income, rural and certain migrant populations are at greater risk for COVID-19. Current in-person testing methods have limitations. Dried blood spot (DBS) samples could be an alternative option for COVID-19 testing. Testing with DBS showed 100% agreement with paired plasma samples.
Underserved, low-income, rural and certain migrant populations have greater risks and higher incidences of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than more privileged populations. Current in-person testing methods have limitations, namely exposure risk, a requirement of accessible transportation to healthcare facilities, and economic barriers. Dried blood spots (DBS) samples are widely used for diagnostics in many infectious diseases including Rabies, HIV, Ebola viruses and newborn screening. Our goal was to determine the accuracy and reliability of measuring COVID-19 IgG in DBS compared to paired plasma samples in a population with known infection status and then apply this method to screen an underserved minority population with high risk for COVID-9 infection (unvaccinated, pregnant, low income, Hispanic women). To optimize the assay, we tested 22 nonpregnant women, 12 with positive prior PCR testing for SARS-CoV2 infection and 10 with negative PCR results. After the assay was optimized, we tested the assay in a vulnerable population with a high risk for infection, who were 52 Hispanic pregnant women without prior PCR testing or vaccination. DBS assay results in both groups showed an agreement of 100% with paired plasma samples. The availability of a DBS assay could enable people who may not have access or transportation to healthcare facilities to use DBS as a COVID-19 testing vehicle.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据