Patient perspectives on point-of-care HIV nucleic acid tests for viral load monitoring in Seattle, WA
Niemann et al.
The finding, in our words
Patients with HIV preferred point-of-care nucleic acid testing on fingerstick blood for its rapid turnaround, though they wanted detection limits below 1000 copies per millilitre and results within two hours. The method was judged acceptable and potentially useful for patients not fully engaged in care.
A paraphrase to the Library’s standard, never the abstract. The source is one link away and is always the authority.
In a cohort of 62 participants evaluating home self-collection with the TassoPlus device, 38 returned samples, with 29% excluded due to insufficient plasma volume below 200 ΔL. Although viral load measurements in adequate samples correlated well with conventional testing (r = 0.800), the high failure rate and missed detection in low-volume viremic samples indicate that further technical refinements are necessary before clinical adoption.
In a feasibility randomised controlled trial with 28 adults aged 65 years, 62% successfully self-collected finger-prick capillary blood samples for influenza antibody and vitamin D measurement. While overall study procedures were acceptable, the capillary sampling method requires refinement before wider deployment in decentralised diagnostics for older adults.
Royal et al., Pilot and feasibility studies (paywalled) · source ↗
A UK survey of 2,816 healthcare workers found that 74% preferred at-home PCR testing and 52% preferred at-home serological sampling over hospital visits; some reported blood-collection or kit difficulties, and the authors conclude that home sampling is acceptable and workable for keeping participants in long-running studies.
Capillary blood self-collected with the VAMS device showed 100 per cent agreement with serum for detecting SARS-CoV-2 S RBD antibodies in participants with known past infection, and saliva showed slightly lower but high agreement; agreement was good to almost perfect in those without known antibodies, and most participants found finger prick easy while half found the microsampler easy, supporting decentralised serosurveillance.
A 2025 review maps 28 microsampling devices, from dried spots and volumetric absorptive tips to upper-arm liquid capillary collectors, and names what a laboratory must control before their results are used: the haematocrit effect in non-volumetric dried samples, interstitial fluid from finger milking, volume, haemolysis and transport stability. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic ask for the same two things, a device the patient can use safely and a sample fit for the test.