Quantitative metabolomics comparison of traditional blood draws and TAP capillary blood collection
Catala et al.
The finding, in our words
Metabolomics of TAP capillary blood matched venous draws for most metabolites, amino acids, bile acids and acyl-carnitines at r≥0.95; a small redox/energy subset differed with collection dynamics.
A paraphrase to the Library’s standard, never the abstract. The source is one link away and is always the authority.
A head-to-head of four upper-arm capillary devices, including TAP Micro Select, versus fingerstick and venous: experience and performance varied by device with none clearly superior, while analyte correlations with venous were similar across all.
Plasma lipidomes from self-collected upper-arm capillary blood were statistically indistinguishable from paired venous plasma, most classes at r=0.95–0.99, validating at-home capillary self-collection for lipidomics.
In 46 women under hormone monitoring at Columbia University Fertility Center, oestradiol, LH, FSH, progesterone and hCG measured on routine immunoassays from 400 to 600 microlitres of upper-arm capillary blood collected with TAP Micro Select agreed closely with paired venous results for every analyte, with correlation and concordance high throughout. It is the evidence that puts a self-collected sample inside the daily monitoring of an IVF cycle.
In 91 children and adults, capillary C-peptide taken with the TAP device matched venous sampling with 100% sensitivity and specificity for a clinically relevant level, 200 pmol/L or above, with r = 0.996. 63% preferred it to a needle against 7% who preferred the needle, and same-day bruising was 5.5% versus 34.8% after a venous draw.
TAP II capillary serum, both professionally collected and self-collected, correlated with venous serum at R > 0.9 for eight analytes including ALT, AST, cholesterol, HDL and triglycerides. Creatinine correlated acceptably but carried a consistent negative bias, and carbon dioxide, potassium and albumin did not reach acceptable agreement: the useful reading is that the panel has to be validated, not the device alone.