Volume 57, Issue 5 pp. 1288-1293
IMMUNOHEMATOLOGY

Patient factors associated with unidentified reactivity in solid-phase and polyethylene glycol antibody detection methods

Nichole M. Miller

Nichole M. Miller

Diagnostic Laboratories, BloodCenter of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Search for more papers by this author
Susan T. Johnson

Susan T. Johnson

Diagnostic Laboratories, BloodCenter of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Search for more papers by this author
Erica Carpenter

Erica Carpenter

Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Wisconsin Diagnostic Laboratories, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Search for more papers by this author
Christine A. Naczek

Christine A. Naczek

Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Wisconsin Diagnostic Laboratories, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Search for more papers by this author
Matthew S. Karafin

Corresponding Author

Matthew S. Karafin

Wisconsin Diagnostic Laboratories, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Medical Sciences Institute, BloodCenter of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Address reprint requests to: Matthew S. Karafin, Medical Sciences Institute, BloodCenter of Wisconsin and Medical College of Wisconsin, 8733 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI 53226; e-mail: [email protected].Search for more papers by this author
First published: 14 March 2017
Citations: 7

This study was selected as the 2015 recipient of the AABB Fenwal Scholarship.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Several publications have reported an increase in nonspecific reactions when automated technologies such as solid phase are used for the detection of red blood cell alloantibodies. However, there is little known about patient-specific factors associated with these reactions and the clinical importance of these nonspecific reactions.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a 6-year retrospective review of our blood bank records and all newly reported unidentified (UID) reactivity using a test tube polyethylene glycol (t-PEG) and solid-phase method for the detection and identification of alloantibodies was recorded. Patient factors, such as underlying diagnosis, age, sex, ABO, Rh type, ethnicity, and subsequent antibody formation were recorded in each case.

RESULTS

We determined that there was a significant increase in new UID reactions recorded in solid phase (20 per 10,000 tests) when compared to the t-PEG (1.8 per 10,000 tests) method for the detection of antibodies (p ≤ 0.0001). Solid-phase UID reactions were significantly associated with female sex (p = 0.04) and certain diagnoses, such as chronic or autoimmune disease, cancer, pregnancy, surgery, and trauma. Approximately 16% of patients developed a new auto- or alloantibody subsequent to their detected UID using solid phase.

CONCLUSIONS

When solid phase is used for antibody identification, there is greater sensitivity toward nonspecific reactivity when compared to the t-PEG method. Patient sex and underlying diagnosis may explain the increased incidence of new UID reactivity in the solid-phase technology. Finally, UID reactivity should not be overlooked due to a notable percentage of subsequent clinically significant antibodies after UID detection.

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