Comparison of two column agglutination tests for red blood cell antibody testing.

<h4>Background</h4>Several sensitive methods are available for red blood cell (RBC) antibody screening. Among these, gel and glass card systems have demonstrated comparably good performance in retrospective studies and are widely used in routine patient diagnostics, but their performance...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jonas Sawierucha, Marion Posset, Viola Hähnel, Christian L Johnson, James A Hutchinson, Norbert Ahrens
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2018-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210099
id doaj-eefe5ff4c40b4b05a0645eeead471506
record_format Article
spelling doaj-eefe5ff4c40b4b05a0645eeead4715062021-03-04T10:38:45ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032018-01-011312e021009910.1371/journal.pone.0210099Comparison of two column agglutination tests for red blood cell antibody testing.Jonas SawieruchaMarion PossetViola HähnelChristian L JohnsonJames A HutchinsonNorbert Ahrens<h4>Background</h4>Several sensitive methods are available for red blood cell (RBC) antibody screening. Among these, gel and glass card systems have demonstrated comparably good performance in retrospective studies and are widely used in routine patient diagnostics, but their performance in prospective studies has not been sufficiently characterised.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Gel card (Bio-Rad DiaMed) and glass bead-based (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics) column agglutination technologies were used to screen for antibodies prospectively (group A) and for antibody identification in stored and fresh samples known to contain RBC antibodies retrospectively (group B). Untreated reagent RBCs and either papain-treated (Bio-Rad) or ficin-treated panel C cells (Ortho) were used for antibody identification.<h4>Results</h4>RBC-reactive antibodies were detected in 22 of 1000 group A samples, three of which tested positive only by gel card agglutination, and four only by glass bead agglutination (including one false positive each). Group B comprised 202 sera with known antibodies: 33 of these samples contained 36 antibodies detected only by gel card agglutination, whereas 9 samples contained antibodies detectable only by glass bead-based agglutination. Discrepancies mostly involved weak antibodies reactive by enzyme only. Two sera contained antibody mixtures that neither system detected completely. Of note, in antibody differentiation batches one and two, anti-Lua was reactive in 7 of 7 and 1 of 8 samples, respectively.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Both column agglutination tests for red cell antibodies had equal sensitivity and specificity with unstored samples. In stored samples, weak and enzyme-only antibodies were more frequently detected with the gel card system.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210099
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jonas Sawierucha
Marion Posset
Viola Hähnel
Christian L Johnson
James A Hutchinson
Norbert Ahrens
spellingShingle Jonas Sawierucha
Marion Posset
Viola Hähnel
Christian L Johnson
James A Hutchinson
Norbert Ahrens
Comparison of two column agglutination tests for red blood cell antibody testing.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Jonas Sawierucha
Marion Posset
Viola Hähnel
Christian L Johnson
James A Hutchinson
Norbert Ahrens
author_sort Jonas Sawierucha
title Comparison of two column agglutination tests for red blood cell antibody testing.
title_short Comparison of two column agglutination tests for red blood cell antibody testing.
title_full Comparison of two column agglutination tests for red blood cell antibody testing.
title_fullStr Comparison of two column agglutination tests for red blood cell antibody testing.
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two column agglutination tests for red blood cell antibody testing.
title_sort comparison of two column agglutination tests for red blood cell antibody testing.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2018-01-01
description <h4>Background</h4>Several sensitive methods are available for red blood cell (RBC) antibody screening. Among these, gel and glass card systems have demonstrated comparably good performance in retrospective studies and are widely used in routine patient diagnostics, but their performance in prospective studies has not been sufficiently characterised.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Gel card (Bio-Rad DiaMed) and glass bead-based (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics) column agglutination technologies were used to screen for antibodies prospectively (group A) and for antibody identification in stored and fresh samples known to contain RBC antibodies retrospectively (group B). Untreated reagent RBCs and either papain-treated (Bio-Rad) or ficin-treated panel C cells (Ortho) were used for antibody identification.<h4>Results</h4>RBC-reactive antibodies were detected in 22 of 1000 group A samples, three of which tested positive only by gel card agglutination, and four only by glass bead agglutination (including one false positive each). Group B comprised 202 sera with known antibodies: 33 of these samples contained 36 antibodies detected only by gel card agglutination, whereas 9 samples contained antibodies detectable only by glass bead-based agglutination. Discrepancies mostly involved weak antibodies reactive by enzyme only. Two sera contained antibody mixtures that neither system detected completely. Of note, in antibody differentiation batches one and two, anti-Lua was reactive in 7 of 7 and 1 of 8 samples, respectively.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Both column agglutination tests for red cell antibodies had equal sensitivity and specificity with unstored samples. In stored samples, weak and enzyme-only antibodies were more frequently detected with the gel card system.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210099
work_keys_str_mv AT jonassawierucha comparisonoftwocolumnagglutinationtestsforredbloodcellantibodytesting
AT marionposset comparisonoftwocolumnagglutinationtestsforredbloodcellantibodytesting
AT violahahnel comparisonoftwocolumnagglutinationtestsforredbloodcellantibodytesting
AT christianljohnson comparisonoftwocolumnagglutinationtestsforredbloodcellantibodytesting
AT jamesahutchinson comparisonoftwocolumnagglutinationtestsforredbloodcellantibodytesting
AT norbertahrens comparisonoftwocolumnagglutinationtestsforredbloodcellantibodytesting
_version_ 1714805180512337920