Volume 48, Issue 3 pp. 513-518

Is flow cytometry accurate enough to screen platelet autoantibodies?

Nathalie Hézard

Nathalie Hézard

From the Laboratoire d'Hématologie, CHU Robert Debré, Reims; and the Institut National de Transfusion Sanguine, Paris, France.

Search for more papers by this author
Gérard Simon

Gérard Simon

From the Laboratoire d'Hématologie, CHU Robert Debré, Reims; and the Institut National de Transfusion Sanguine, Paris, France.

Search for more papers by this author
Catherine Macé

Catherine Macé

From the Laboratoire d'Hématologie, CHU Robert Debré, Reims; and the Institut National de Transfusion Sanguine, Paris, France.

Search for more papers by this author
Vincent Jallu

Vincent Jallu

From the Laboratoire d'Hématologie, CHU Robert Debré, Reims; and the Institut National de Transfusion Sanguine, Paris, France.

Search for more papers by this author
Cécile Kaplan

Cécile Kaplan

From the Laboratoire d'Hématologie, CHU Robert Debré, Reims; and the Institut National de Transfusion Sanguine, Paris, France.

Search for more papers by this author
Philippe Nguyen

Philippe Nguyen

From the Laboratoire d'Hématologie, CHU Robert Debré, Reims; and the Institut National de Transfusion Sanguine, Paris, France.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 07 December 2007
Citations: 13
Pr Philippe Nguyen, MD, PhD, Laboratoire d'Hématologie, CHU Robert Debré, 51092 Reims Cédex, France; e-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is a diagnosis of exclusion, as stated by international guidelines. Nevertheless, the assessment of platelet (PLT) antibodies has been reported as helpful for the diagnosis and the follow-up of ITP patients. PLT antibodies are detected by highly specialized assays, such as monoclonal antibody–specific immobilization of PLT antigen (MAIPA) test. Flow cytometry for PLT-associated immunoglobulin G (PAIgG) detection has been described more recently. This study was meant to evaluate the utility of flow cytometry to screen accurately patients needing further MAIPA testing.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: PAIgG, PAIgM, and PAIgA were determined in 107 consecutive patients and in 147 healthy controls in parallel. MAIPA testing was performed in all patients. The accuracy of flow cytometry was assessed with a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis versus MAIPA.

RESULTS: MAIPA assay found PLT-specific IgG in 27 patients (25%). The ROC curve analysis showed that no false-negative result in flow cytometry was obtained for a mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) cutoff of 0.2. With this cutoff, PAIgG were positive in 61 patients (57%). In this series, MAIPA was unnecessary in 42 percent of patients (corresponding to true-negative results). When MAIPA was positive, PAIgM values ranged from 0.1 to 1.0, and PAIgA from 0.1 to 2.

CONCLUSION: Flow cytometry for PAIgG assessment may be used to accurately decide whether or not MAIPA must be subsequently performed. In this series, MAIPA was unnecessary in 42 percent of patients. Moreover, PAIgM results suggested that its determination combined with PAIgG may be of interest in ITP investigation.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.