Point-of-care Hb measurement in pooled capillary blood by a portable autoanalyser: comparison with venous blood Hb measured by reference methods in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies

Abstract

Abstract Population-based surveys commonly use point-of-care (POC) methods with capillary blood samples for estimating Hb concentrations; these estimates need to be validated by comparison with reference methods using venous blood. In a cross-sectional study in 748 participants (17–86 years, 708 women, Hb: 5·1 to 18·2 g/dl) from Hyderabad, India, we validated Hb measured from a pooled capillary blood sample by a POC autoanalyser (Horiba ABX Micros 60OT, Hb-C-AA) by comparison with venous blood Hb measured by two reference methods: POC autoanalyser (Hb-V-AA) and cyanmethemoglobin method (Hb-V-CM). These comparisons also allowed estimation of blood sample-related and equipment-related differences in the Hb estimates. We also conducted a longitudinal study in 426 participants (17–21 years) to measure differences in the Hb response to iron folate (IFA) treatment by the capillary blood POC method compared with the reference methods. In the cross-sectional study, Bland–Altman analyses showed trivial differences between source of blood (Hb-C-AA and Hb-V-AA; mean difference, limits of agreement: 0·1, −0·8 to 1·0 g/dl) and between analytical methods (Hb-V-AA and Hb-V-CM; mean difference, limits of agreement: < 0·1, −1·8 to 1·8 g/dl). Cross-sectional anaemia prevalence estimated using Hb-C-AA did not differ significantly from Hb-V-CM or Hb-V-AA. In the longitudinal study, the Hb increment in response to IFA intervention was not different when using Hb-C-AA (1·6 ± 1·7 g/dl) compared with Hb-V-AA (1·7 ± 1·7 g/dl) and Hb-V-CM (1·7 ± 1·7 g/dl). The pooled capillary blood–autoanalyzer method (Hb-C-AA) offers a practical and accurate way forward for POC screening of anaemia.