Clinical chemistry and dried blood spots: increasing laboratory utilization by improved understanding of quantitative challenges.

Abstract

BioanalysisVol. 6, No. 21 Special Focus: Clinical Chemistry - EditorialFree AccessClinical chemistry and dried blood spots: increasing laboratory utilization by improved understanding of quantitative challengesDonald H Chace, Víctor R De Jesús & Alan R SpitzerDonald H ChaceAuthor for correspondence: E-mail Address: donald_chace@pediatrix.comThe Pediatrix Center for Research & Education, Pediatrix Medical Group, 1301 Concord Terrace, Sunrise, FL 33323, USASearch for more papers by this author, Víctor R De JesúsNewborn Screening & Molecular Biology Branch, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341, USASearch for more papers by this author & Alan R SpitzerThe Pediatrix Center for Research & Education, Pediatrix Medical Group, 1301 Concord Terrace, Sunrise, FL 33323, USASearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:8 Dec 2014https://doi.org/10.4155/bio.14.237AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Keywords: biomarkersclinical chemistrydried blood spotsisotope dilution mass spectrometrymetabolismnewborn screeningBackgroundTo best understand the use of dried blood spots (DBS) in clinical chemistry, we must first differentiate laboratory screening from diagnostics. Newborn screening (NBS) utilizes DBS to detect and quantify biomarkers indicative of more than 50 congenital diseases primarily of metabolic origin [1]. Many different methods are used, including modern analytical technologies such as MS/MS [2,3] and molecular analyses [4,5]. Each method is designed specifically to analyze DBS specimens with laboratory protocols and systems that begin with a paper hole puncher rather than a pipette. Unfortunately, NBS is often differentiated from clinical chemistry because it is ‘screening’ tool rather than a ‘diagnostic’ application. This is a common misconception because no method is diagnostic, but rather leads to a physician diagnosis that is based, in part, on laboratory results. Like any clinical test, NBS results take into consideration additional data such as age of newborn, birth weight, gestational age, and nutritional status [6–8]. Additionally, NBS is regulated by a comprehensive QA/QC network that is shared worldwide [9]. There are a small number of traditional clinical laboratories that use DBS in a diagnostic setting, primarily in specialized metabolic applications, further supporting that DBS utilization is not restricted to ‘screening’ laboratories, nor does it involve relaxed laboratory standards. The question is: why are DBS not used to a greater extent in traditional clinical laboratories? It is likely due to the analytical challenges and common misperceptions of the DBS. Specifically, the challenges of DBS implementation such as cross-validation of a DBS assay from a liquid sample analysis, logistical systems limitations for handling DBS versus liquid samples, and clinical laboratory bias towards single metabolite analysis versus metabolic profiles.Advantages of DBSDBS are whole blood specimens obtained directly from the patient being tested. For newborns DBS are collected as a heel stick and in adults, a finger prick. Approximately 200–300 µl of blood (4–6 drops) is needed for DBS analysis as compared with 5–10 ml of blood by venipuncture for most clinical assays. A reduction of blood volume required for collection and analysis is the primary advantage of DBS in clinical chemistry, especially for newborns and premature infants. Although there are new methods of sample collection that utilize small volumes of blood or plasma, a DBS card has the added advantage in that it can easily be sampled multiple times for a variety of assays; which is more challenging than in any small-volume liquid specimen collection.One major advantage of DBS versus liquid specimens is shipping and storage requirements [10]. DBS can be shipped in a standard business envelope following proper labeling requirements, while blood or plasma requires refrigeration or packaging with dry ice which can be expensive and often requires overnight shipping. In terms of storage, enzymes are inactivated in the dry state, thus enhancing their stability on the DBS matrix and many proteins and metabolites have been shown to be stable in DBS [11]. Furthermore, the storage space requirements are dramatically reduced, refrigeration is not necessarily required, and the potential for infection is less than with liquid specimens. We return to the obvious question, why don't clinical laboratories embrace the DBS specimen? The answer, in part, is the perception that sampling issues (volume obtained) of DBS specimens are problematic [12–14].DBS challenges & solutionsMost sampling of DBS is done by obtaining a punch (a portion of an entire blood spot) from the filter paper specimen collection card and the blood volume in this punch can be estimated by the diameter of the punch. Three factors influence the estimated volume from a specific diameter punch, filter paper absorptivity, blood volume applied to the paper, and hematocrit influences, and must be taken into account for any successful DBS analysis. First is the absorptivity of the filter paper, which is controlled by standardization of all paper used in NBS [15]. That same standard can be applied to clinical laboratory tests. Second, the volume of blood applied to the paper can impact the saturation of the paper. While the exact volume of the blood drop applied to filter paper may vary, by printing a target on the filter paper (dashed circles) and filling these circles completely can ensure that 50–75 µlwhole blood is present in each target area. Double-spotting (layering) can also be a problem but is usually obvious on inspection. Third, the hematocrit influences the surface area that blood will spread for any given volume applied. Hematocrit variations only affect blood volume significantly at very high or low values. When blood is collected properly and these concerns are addressed, then a DBS specimen is accurate to within 15%. However, quantification and perceived inaccuracies are still partly to blame for the lack of adoption of DBS in clinical chemistry outside of NBS.Solutions to DBS implementation in clinical chemistry begin by understanding the analytical approaches used in NBS [16]. Another, less recognized issue in the quantification of metabolites from DBS is the efficiency of analyte extraction into a liquid solvent that contains the reference standards [17]. With liquid analysis, these standards can be added to the specimen. Errors in the extraction process will affect both internal standards and metabolites. In stable-isotope dilution MS (IDMS) methods, the standard is often an isotopologue and behaves like the metabolite measured. In DBS analysis, it is presumed no standard was added during the collection process but rather during the extraction or sample preparation. A reduction in the extraction of metabolites often occurs if DBS cannot be completely reconstituted in a solvent or liquid matrix. This can lead to errors if the extraction efficiency (recovery) is not taken into account or is not reproducible.Newborn screening utilizes DBS exclusively while most clinical chemistry tests use plasma obtained from whole blood. To see a significant utilization of DBS in clinical chemistry, there would have to be a demonstrable need for its use based on its advantages as described here. Furthermore, DBS widespread adoption in the near future is challenging as the existing infrastructure in clinical laboratories, especially hospital-based are heavily dependent on clinical auto analyzers, which utilize colorimetric assays, as the main tools in the clinical laboratory which are not DBS compatible. These systems are highly automated and perform many different assays, and have dedicated staff, laboratory technicians trained in their use and significant capital invested in them. However, DBS can make inroads into clinical use in laboratories that use specialized analytical tools such as GC–MS, LC–MS, and molecular analysis, rather than large auto analyzers. Many specialized laboratories have been embracing these technologies and will make it easier to introduce DBS analysis rather than whole blood or plasma. The use of MS-based analyzers in particular enables detection of many biomarkers present in blood at very low levels [18–20]; laboratory personnel must be trained on DBS sampling and handling after a method has been properly validated.Cross-validation of DBS with comparison to existing whole blood/plasma-based assays is key for its introduction into a clinical laboratory workflow. Analytically it is a challenge to compare whole blood versus plasma, thus most assay developments compare plasma to DBS. It is important to understand that metabolite levels in blood may be different than in plasma and must be considered.In terms of solving the limitations of DBS such as hematocrit, a focus on more accurately measuring the blood volume of the sample obtained would be useful regardless of spot size or hematocrit. Delivering known volumes of blood to a DBS card using a calibrated pipette will help, provided there was no hemolysis, clotting, or disruption of the paper upon spotting. Addition of internal standards during the collection process would all but eliminate extraction efficiency errors in filter paper specimen collection, if mixing could be assured and costs kept low.Some metabolic analyses in liquid are problematic if these metabolites are unstable or converted to other metabolites prior to analysis. These issues can often be addressed when using DBS [21]. However, if an analysis in a liquid specimen, with high precision (low coefficients of variation), is not accurate because of sample degradation, why is the alternative solution (DBS) not considered? Is accuracy in the measurement better than precision when it comes to disease diagnostics? Clinical chemists should weigh the tradeoff between accuracy and precision and develop new approaches to interpretation of data such as concentration ratios of metabolites [22], detection of multiple markers supporting a disease diagnosis [7,23], and markers that may represent liquid compartments (i.e., extracellular fluid and intracellular fluid).DBS outlook in clinical chemistryThere are many novel solutions that will improve the use of DBS in both screening and clinical laboratories [24]. This improvement may be observed when the advantages of DBS far outweigh the perceived disadvantages [12]. Clearly this is the case with newborn screening and metabolic diagnostic laboratories. Perhaps areas of clinical chemistry such as disease and drug monitoring or clinical trials will be where the evidence is obtained for its expansion [25]. In both these areas the need for offsite, small volume collection with stable storage and biosafety may outweigh any analytical concerns.DisclaimerThe findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Financial & competing interests disclosureThe authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.References1 Watson MS, Lloyd-Puryear MA, Mann MY, Rinaldo P, Howell RR. Newborn screening: toward a uniform screening panel and system. Genet. Med. 8(5), S12–S252 (2006).Crossref, Google Scholar2 De Jesus VR, Chace DH, Lim TH, Mei JV, Hannon WH. Comparison of amino acids and acylcarnitines assay methods used in newborn screening assays by tandem mass spectrometry. Clin. Chim. Acta 411(9–10), 684–689 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar3 Chace DH, Diperna JC, Mitchell BL, Sgroi B, Hofman LF, Naylor EW. Electrospray tandem mass spectrometry for analysis of acylcarnitines in dried postmortem blood specimens collected at autopsy from infants with unexplained cause of death. Clin. Chem. 47(7), 1166–1182 (2001).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar4 Wang LY, Chen NI, Chen PW et al. Newborn screening for citrin deficiency and carnitine uptake defect using second-tier molecular tests. BMC Med. Genet. 14, 24 (2013).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5 Puckett RL, Orsini JJ, Pastores GM et al. Krabbe disease: clinical, biochemical and molecular information on six new patients and successful retrospective diagnosis using stored newborn screening cards. Mol. Genet. Metab. 105(1), 126–131 (2012).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar6 Chan CL, Mcfann K, Taylor L, Wright D, Zeitler PS, Barker JM. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia and the second newborn screen. J. Pediatr. 163(1), 109–113 (2013).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar7 Sarafoglou K, Himes JH, Lacey JM, Netzel BC, Singh RJ, Matern D. Comparison of multiple steroid concentrations in serum and dried blood spots throughout the day of patients with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Horm. Res. Paediatr. 75(1), 19–25 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar8 Newborn screening for preterm, low birth weight, and sick newborns: Approved guideline (CLSI Document NBS03-A,1-56238-710-3). Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1400, Wayne PA, USA (2009).Google Scholar9 De Jesus VR, Mei JV, Bell CJ, Hannon WH. Improving and assuring newborn screening laboratory quality worldwide: 30-year experience at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Semin. Perinatol. 34(2), 125–133 (2010).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar10 Mei JV. Dried blood spot sample collection, storage, and transportation. In: Dried Blood Spots: Applications and Techniques, Wenkui Li MSL (Ed.) John Wiley & Sons, Inc, NY, USA, 21–31 (2014).Crossref, Google Scholar11 Adam BW, Hall EM, Sternberg M et al. The stability of markers in dried-blood spots for recommended newborn screening disorders in the United States. Clin. Biochem. 44(17–18), 1445–1450 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar12 De Jesus VR, Chace DH. Commentary on the history and quantitative nature of filter paper used in blood collection devices. Bioanalysis 4(6), 645–647 (2012). author reply 649.Link, CAS, Google Scholar13 Spooner N. A dried blood spot update: still an important bioanalytical technique? Bioanalysis 5(8), 879–883 (2013).Link, CAS, Google Scholar14 O'mara M, Hudson-Curtis B, Olson K, Yueh Y, Dunn J, Spooner N. The effect of hematocrit and punch location on assay bias during quantitative bioanalysis of dried blood spot samples. Bioanalysis 3(20), 2335–2347 (2011).Link, Google Scholar15 Blood Collection on Filter Paper for Newborn Screening Programs; Approved Standard (6th Edition) CLSI Document NBS01-A6, 1-56238-000. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1400 Wayne, PA, USA (2013).Google Scholar16 La Marca G. Mass spectrometry in clinical chemistry: the case of newborn screening. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. (2014). doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2014.03.047 (Epub ahead of print).Crossref, Google Scholar17 Chace DH, Kalas TA, Naylor EW. Use of tandem mass spectrometry for multianalyte screening of dried blood specimens from newborns. Clin. Chem. 49(11), 1797–1817 (2003).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar18 Mather J, Rainville PD, Spooner N, Evans CA, Smith NW, Plumb RS. Rapid analysis of dried blood spot samples with sub-2-microm LC-MS/MS. Bioanalysis 3(4), 411–420 (2011).Link, CAS, Google Scholar19 Barfield M, Spooner N, Lad R, Parry S, Fowles S. Application of dried blood spots combined with HPLC-MS/MS for the quantification of acetaminophen in toxicokinetic studies. J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 870(1), 32–37 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar20 Otero-Santos SM, Delinsky AD, Valentin-Blasini L, Schiffer J, Blount BC. Analysis of perchlorate in dried blood spots using ion chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 81(5), 1931–1936 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar21 Blessborn D SK, Zeeberg D, Kaewkhao K, Sköld O, Ahnoff M. Heat stabilization of blood spot samples for determination of metabolically unstable drug compounds. Bioanalysis 5(1), 31–39 (2013).Link, CAS, Google Scholar22 Chace DH, Sherwin JE, Hillman SL, Lorey F, Cunningham GC. Use of phenylalanine-to-tyrosine ratio determined by tandem mass spectrometry to improve newborn screening for phenylketonuria of early discharge specimens collected in the first 24 hours. Clin. Chem. 44(12), 2405–2409 (1998).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar23 Van Hove JL, Zhang W, Kahler SG et al. Medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency: diagnosis by acylcarnitine analysis in blood. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 52(5), 958–966 (1993).Medline, CAS, Google Scholar24 Spooner N. A glowing future for dried blood spot sampling. Bioanalysis 2(8), 1343–1344 (2010).Link, CAS, Google Scholar25 Manicke NE, Abu-Rabie P, Spooner N, Ouyang Z, Cooks RG. Quantitative analysis of therapeutic drugs in dried blood spot samples by paper spray mass spectrometry: an avenue to therapeutic drug monitoring. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 22(9), 1501–1507 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByCell Analysis from Dried Blood Spots: New Opportunities in Immunology, Hematology, and Infectious Diseases18 July 2021 | Advanced Science, Vol. 8, No. 18Combining lipidomics and machine learning to measure clinical lipids in dried blood spots24 July 2020 | Metabolomics, Vol. 16, No. 8Hematocrit, blood volume, and surface area of dried blood spots – a quantitative modelDrug Testing and Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 4Opportunities and obstacles for microsampling techniques in bioanalysis: Special focus on DBS and VAMSJournal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, Vol. 182Should phosphatidylethanol be currently analysed using whole blood, dried blood spots or both?Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), Vol. 57, No. 5Trockenblut7 March 2019Cortical Pain Response of Newborn Infants to VenepunctureThe Clinical Journal of Pain, Vol. 34, No. 7Response to Gelb et al.: “Comparison of tandem mass spectrometry to fluorimetry for newborn screening of LSDs”Molecular Genetics and Metabolism Reports, Vol. 12Misinformation regarding tandem mass spectrometric vs fluorometric assays to screen newborns for LSDsMolecular Genetics and Metabolism Reports, Vol. 11Trockenblut23 September 2017Validation, quality control, and compliance practice for mass spectrometry assays in the clinical laboratoryA DBS method for quantitation of the new oral trypanocidal drug fexinidazole and its active metabolitesAziz Filali-Ansary, Cécile Augé, Audrey Abgrall, Marie Souchaud, Franck Pellissier, Olaf Valverde Mordt, Séverine Blesson & Ger-Jan Sanderink9 September 2016 | Bioanalysis, Vol. 8, No. 19 Vol. 6, No. 21 Follow us on social media for the latest updates Metrics History Published online 8 December 2014 Published in print November 2014 Information© Future Science LtdKeywordsbiomarkersclinical chemistrydried blood spotsisotope dilution mass spectrometrymetabolismnewborn screeningDisclaimerThe findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Financial & competing interests disclosureThe authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.PDF download