• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

J Clin Virol . Comparison of influenza hemagglutination inhibition titers from capillary blood versus venipuncture

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Clin Virol


. 2026 May 19:184:105952.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2026.105952. Online ahead of print.
Comparison of influenza hemagglutination inhibition titers from capillary blood versus venipuncture

Anne-Marie Rick[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Rachel Costa[SUP] 2 [/SUP], John F Alcorn[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Stacie Jefferson[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Brendan Flannery[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Min Z Levine[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Judith M Martin[SUP] 2 [/SUP]


Affiliations
Abstract

Background: Capillary blood self-collection devices offer a minimally invasive alternative to venipuncture, potentially expanding access to serologic studies in outpatient and remote settings. We aimed to evaluate the concordance of influenza HAI titers between capillary blood collected using a minimally invasive device and venous blood collected via standard venipuncture.
Methods: We compared three paired samples collected from participants during a single visit: venipuncture, staff-assisted capillary device collection (clinic-collect), and participant self-collected capillary device with 72-hour delayed processing (self-collect) to simulate both on-site and at-home blood collection conditions. We compared HAI titers against influenza A(H1N1) antigen across collection methods using Pearson correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, and paired t-tests. Sample volume adequacy and correlation thresholds for clinical interpretability were also assessed.
Results: Among 27 participants, HAI titers correlated strongly between venipuncture and both minimally invasive device approaches (clinic-collect: r = 0.955; self-collect: r = 0.937). Venipuncture titers were modestly higher, with mean differences of + 0.26 log₂ units (clinic-collect) and + 0.35 log₂ units (self-collect); these differences were below the 1-dilution (2-fold) threshold and not clinically meaningful. Most device samples (89-96%) fell within ±1 log₂ unit of venipuncture. On first attempt, 78% of device collections met the ≥ 600 μL volume threshold, increasing to > 93% with use of a second device.
Conclusion: Minimally invasive devices yielded influenza HAI titers highly comparable to venipuncture, with clinically acceptable differences in adults. Self-collection with a minimally invasive device could serve as a practical, scalable alternative for serologic studies.

Keywords: Capillary blood; Hemagglutination inhibition titers; Influenza; Tasso; Venipuncture.

 
Back
Top