Antibody identification using both automated solid-phase red cell adherence assay and a tube polyethylene glycol antiglobulin method

Chisa Yamada, Leana Serrano-Rahman, Ljiljana V. Vasovic, Kala Mohandas, Joan Uehlinger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Because antibody identification is labor-intensive, facilities with high volume and/or marginal technical support could benefit from partial automation. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: After a validation study of automated solid-phase red cell (RBC) adherence assay (SPRCA; Galileo, Immucor) compared to tube polyethylene glycol antiglobulin antibody identification method (t-PEG), we evaluated Galileo followed by select RBC panels by t-PEG. Of 298 consecutive samples in which antibody identifications were performed in a 2-month period, 160 samples were examined by both Galileo and t-PEG. RESULTS: There were concordant results between Galileo and t-PEG in 120 of 160 (75%) samples including cases with identical alloantibody identification (n = 99), panagglutinin (n = 9), and negative results (n = 12). Of the samples in which alloantibodies were identified, 99 of 108 (91.7%) were identical. In 9 samples with discrepant antibody identifications, 2 samples showed alloantibody specificity by Galileo (possible anti-K and anti-Jkb) but were negative by t-PEG. These antibodies were identifiable by t-PEG in subsequent samples. One sample showed anti-E by Galileo, while t-PEG revealed anti-Fy a and -E. Five samples showed alloantibody specificity by t-PEG and nonspecific reactivity or panagglutinin by Galileo. These included samples with anti-C (n = 2), anti-E (n = 2), and anti-Fya (n = 1). One sample showed anti-E by t-PEG but was negative by Galileo. Galileo found a panagglutinin in 23 samples and nonspecific reactivity in 22 samples, whereas t-PEG found a panagglutinin in 12 samples but no nonspecific reactivity. CONCLUSIONS: Automated Galileo solid-phase red cell adherence assay can be a useful adjunct for antibody identification, although it detects more nonspecific reactivity than does t-PEG.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1693-1698
Number of pages6
JournalTransfusion
Volume48
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2008

Fingerprint

Isoantibodies
Anti-Idiotypic Antibodies
Antibodies
Validation Studies
Automation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology
  • Immunology

Cite this

Antibody identification using both automated solid-phase red cell adherence assay and a tube polyethylene glycol antiglobulin method. / Yamada, Chisa; Serrano-Rahman, Leana; Vasovic, Ljiljana V.; Mohandas, Kala; Uehlinger, Joan.

In: Transfusion, Vol. 48, No. 8, 08.2008, p. 1693-1698.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c0e48e431e034b28ad5aafdbbd657ef6,
title = "Antibody identification using both automated solid-phase red cell adherence assay and a tube polyethylene glycol antiglobulin method",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Because antibody identification is labor-intensive, facilities with high volume and/or marginal technical support could benefit from partial automation. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: After a validation study of automated solid-phase red cell (RBC) adherence assay (SPRCA; Galileo, Immucor) compared to tube polyethylene glycol antiglobulin antibody identification method (t-PEG), we evaluated Galileo followed by select RBC panels by t-PEG. Of 298 consecutive samples in which antibody identifications were performed in a 2-month period, 160 samples were examined by both Galileo and t-PEG. RESULTS: There were concordant results between Galileo and t-PEG in 120 of 160 (75{\%}) samples including cases with identical alloantibody identification (n = 99), panagglutinin (n = 9), and negative results (n = 12). Of the samples in which alloantibodies were identified, 99 of 108 (91.7{\%}) were identical. In 9 samples with discrepant antibody identifications, 2 samples showed alloantibody specificity by Galileo (possible anti-K and anti-Jkb) but were negative by t-PEG. These antibodies were identifiable by t-PEG in subsequent samples. One sample showed anti-E by Galileo, while t-PEG revealed anti-Fy a and -E. Five samples showed alloantibody specificity by t-PEG and nonspecific reactivity or panagglutinin by Galileo. These included samples with anti-C (n = 2), anti-E (n = 2), and anti-Fya (n = 1). One sample showed anti-E by t-PEG but was negative by Galileo. Galileo found a panagglutinin in 23 samples and nonspecific reactivity in 22 samples, whereas t-PEG found a panagglutinin in 12 samples but no nonspecific reactivity. CONCLUSIONS: Automated Galileo solid-phase red cell adherence assay can be a useful adjunct for antibody identification, although it detects more nonspecific reactivity than does t-PEG.",
author = "Chisa Yamada and Leana Serrano-Rahman and Vasovic, {Ljiljana V.} and Kala Mohandas and Joan Uehlinger",
year = "2008",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01736.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "48",
pages = "1693--1698",
journal = "Transfusion",
issn = "0041-1132",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Antibody identification using both automated solid-phase red cell adherence assay and a tube polyethylene glycol antiglobulin method

AU - Yamada, Chisa

AU - Serrano-Rahman, Leana

AU - Vasovic, Ljiljana V.

AU - Mohandas, Kala

AU - Uehlinger, Joan

PY - 2008/8

Y1 - 2008/8

N2 - BACKGROUND: Because antibody identification is labor-intensive, facilities with high volume and/or marginal technical support could benefit from partial automation. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: After a validation study of automated solid-phase red cell (RBC) adherence assay (SPRCA; Galileo, Immucor) compared to tube polyethylene glycol antiglobulin antibody identification method (t-PEG), we evaluated Galileo followed by select RBC panels by t-PEG. Of 298 consecutive samples in which antibody identifications were performed in a 2-month period, 160 samples were examined by both Galileo and t-PEG. RESULTS: There were concordant results between Galileo and t-PEG in 120 of 160 (75%) samples including cases with identical alloantibody identification (n = 99), panagglutinin (n = 9), and negative results (n = 12). Of the samples in which alloantibodies were identified, 99 of 108 (91.7%) were identical. In 9 samples with discrepant antibody identifications, 2 samples showed alloantibody specificity by Galileo (possible anti-K and anti-Jkb) but were negative by t-PEG. These antibodies were identifiable by t-PEG in subsequent samples. One sample showed anti-E by Galileo, while t-PEG revealed anti-Fy a and -E. Five samples showed alloantibody specificity by t-PEG and nonspecific reactivity or panagglutinin by Galileo. These included samples with anti-C (n = 2), anti-E (n = 2), and anti-Fya (n = 1). One sample showed anti-E by t-PEG but was negative by Galileo. Galileo found a panagglutinin in 23 samples and nonspecific reactivity in 22 samples, whereas t-PEG found a panagglutinin in 12 samples but no nonspecific reactivity. CONCLUSIONS: Automated Galileo solid-phase red cell adherence assay can be a useful adjunct for antibody identification, although it detects more nonspecific reactivity than does t-PEG.

AB - BACKGROUND: Because antibody identification is labor-intensive, facilities with high volume and/or marginal technical support could benefit from partial automation. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: After a validation study of automated solid-phase red cell (RBC) adherence assay (SPRCA; Galileo, Immucor) compared to tube polyethylene glycol antiglobulin antibody identification method (t-PEG), we evaluated Galileo followed by select RBC panels by t-PEG. Of 298 consecutive samples in which antibody identifications were performed in a 2-month period, 160 samples were examined by both Galileo and t-PEG. RESULTS: There were concordant results between Galileo and t-PEG in 120 of 160 (75%) samples including cases with identical alloantibody identification (n = 99), panagglutinin (n = 9), and negative results (n = 12). Of the samples in which alloantibodies were identified, 99 of 108 (91.7%) were identical. In 9 samples with discrepant antibody identifications, 2 samples showed alloantibody specificity by Galileo (possible anti-K and anti-Jkb) but were negative by t-PEG. These antibodies were identifiable by t-PEG in subsequent samples. One sample showed anti-E by Galileo, while t-PEG revealed anti-Fy a and -E. Five samples showed alloantibody specificity by t-PEG and nonspecific reactivity or panagglutinin by Galileo. These included samples with anti-C (n = 2), anti-E (n = 2), and anti-Fya (n = 1). One sample showed anti-E by t-PEG but was negative by Galileo. Galileo found a panagglutinin in 23 samples and nonspecific reactivity in 22 samples, whereas t-PEG found a panagglutinin in 12 samples but no nonspecific reactivity. CONCLUSIONS: Automated Galileo solid-phase red cell adherence assay can be a useful adjunct for antibody identification, although it detects more nonspecific reactivity than does t-PEG.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=48249104736&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=48249104736&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01736.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01736.x

M3 - Article

VL - 48

SP - 1693

EP - 1698

JO - Transfusion

JF - Transfusion

SN - 0041-1132

IS - 8

ER -