Quantification of anti‐A of IgM or IgG isotype using three different methodologies

Background Reliability of ABO‐antibody measurement is important in the context of supplying low‐titer ABO incompatible plasma‐containing blood products. This study investigated the correlation of anti‐A measurements between three different titer methodologies. Methods Thirty‐four blood group O indiv...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Transfusion (Philadelphia, Pa.) Jg. 61; H. S1; S. S214 - S222
Hauptverfasser: Sprogøe, Ulrik, Assing, Kristian, Nielsen, Christian, Rasmussen, Mads Hvidkjær, Yazer, Mark H.
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: Hoboken, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.07.2021
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Schlagworte:
ABO system
Agglutination
Antibodies
anti‐A
Automation
Blood group O
Blood groups
Calibration
Flow cytometry
Immunoglobulin G
Immunoglobulin M
methodology
Methods
Reagents
Statistical analysis
Statistical methods
titration
ISSN:0041-1132, 1537-2995, 1537-2995
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Reliability of ABO‐antibody measurement is important in the context of supplying low‐titer ABO incompatible plasma‐containing blood products. This study investigated the correlation of anti‐A measurements between three different titer methodologies. Methods Thirty‐four blood group O individuals were included. IgM and IgG anti‐A was measured by three different methods: (1) manual method (Bio‐Rad ID‐gel card), (2) automated method (Immucor NEO), (3) flow cytometry (FC) with calibration in molecules of equivalent fluorochrome (MEF). Data were log2 transformed to titer steps (TS) and log2 MEF, respectively. All three methods were benchmarked against the 14/300 WHO anti‐A/anti‐B standard reagent. Results The correlation between the manual and automated methods was statistically significant for both IgM (Spearman's rs = 0.89, p < .0001) and IgG (rs = 0.95, p < .0001). The mean TS difference between the manual and automated methods was 0.61 for IgM (p = .0033) and 2.1 for IgG (p < .0001). The manual method yielded IgM titer results that were generally 1 titer step higher than the automated method, whereas for the IgG titrations the difference was generally a median of 2 TS higher. The FC median log2 MEF level was significantly correlated with TS of IgG and IgM for both manual and automated agglutination‐based titer methods (0.69 ≤ r2 ≤ 0.91). With the WHO standard reagent, the manual method produced the expected results while the automated method's results were 1 TS lower for both IgM and IgG at all dilutions tested. Conclusion These results indicate that all three methods are suitable for measuring anti‐A in group O whole blood.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0041-1132
1537-2995
1537-2995
DOI:10.1111/trf.16491