Comparative sensitivity of solid phase versus PEG enhancement assays for detection and identification of RBC antibodies

Denis M Dwyre, Yasuko Erickson, Mary Heintz, Charlene Elbert, Ronald G. Strauss

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Blood banks require a sensitive, specific, and efficient method to detect clinically significant RBC antibodies. Solid phase antibody screening methods are popular due to high sensitivity and automation. However, the high degree of reactivity detects "false positive" antibodies of questionable clinical significance leading to additional testing. We studied positive rates of Capture-R vs. PEG methods and categorized RBC antibodies identified by initial test results of 33,564 consecutive samples by Capture-R method. Capture-R was positive in 1084/33,564 (3.2%) of samples. Using PEG as our "gold standard", PEG confirmed true positivity (i.e., ≥1 cell reacting) in 710 Capture-R positive samples (65.5%); 374 Capture-R positive samples (34.5%) did not react in PEG (i.e., false positives). Of the 710 samples with true positivity, only 510 showed clinically significant alloantibodies. Using PEG as our "gold standard", only 2/3 of reactions by Capture-R were considered true positives. Because of ease and automation, Capture-R is popular as a screening test, but a more specific method may be helpful in order to identify truly significant alloantibodies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)19-23
Number of pages5
JournalTransfusion and Apheresis Science
Volume35
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Antibodies
Isoantibodies
Automation
Blood Banks

Keywords

  • Antibody identification
  • PEG
  • RBC alloantibodies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology
  • Infectious Diseases

Cite this

Comparative sensitivity of solid phase versus PEG enhancement assays for detection and identification of RBC antibodies. / Dwyre, Denis M; Erickson, Yasuko; Heintz, Mary; Elbert, Charlene; Strauss, Ronald G.

In: Transfusion and Apheresis Science, Vol. 35, No. 1, 08.2006, p. 19-23.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dwyre, Denis M ; Erickson, Yasuko ; Heintz, Mary ; Elbert, Charlene ; Strauss, Ronald G. / Comparative sensitivity of solid phase versus PEG enhancement assays for detection and identification of RBC antibodies. In: Transfusion and Apheresis Science. 2006 ; Vol. 35, No. 1. pp. 19-23.
@article{0cdc15eff2ca4c9992de0550b5962d14,
title = "Comparative sensitivity of solid phase versus PEG enhancement assays for detection and identification of RBC antibodies",
abstract = "Blood banks require a sensitive, specific, and efficient method to detect clinically significant RBC antibodies. Solid phase antibody screening methods are popular due to high sensitivity and automation. However, the high degree of reactivity detects {"}false positive{"} antibodies of questionable clinical significance leading to additional testing. We studied positive rates of Capture-R vs. PEG methods and categorized RBC antibodies identified by initial test results of 33,564 consecutive samples by Capture-R method. Capture-R was positive in 1084/33,564 (3.2{\%}) of samples. Using PEG as our {"}gold standard{"}, PEG confirmed true positivity (i.e., ≥1 cell reacting) in 710 Capture-R positive samples (65.5{\%}); 374 Capture-R positive samples (34.5{\%}) did not react in PEG (i.e., false positives). Of the 710 samples with true positivity, only 510 showed clinically significant alloantibodies. Using PEG as our {"}gold standard{"}, only 2/3 of reactions by Capture-R were considered true positives. Because of ease and automation, Capture-R is popular as a screening test, but a more specific method may be helpful in order to identify truly significant alloantibodies.",
keywords = "Antibody identification, PEG, RBC alloantibodies",
author = "Dwyre, {Denis M} and Yasuko Erickson and Mary Heintz and Charlene Elbert and Strauss, {Ronald G.}",
year = "2006",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.transci.2006.02.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "19--23",
journal = "Transfusion and Apheresis Science",
issn = "1473-0502",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative sensitivity of solid phase versus PEG enhancement assays for detection and identification of RBC antibodies

AU - Dwyre, Denis M

AU - Erickson, Yasuko

AU - Heintz, Mary

AU - Elbert, Charlene

AU - Strauss, Ronald G.

PY - 2006/8

Y1 - 2006/8

N2 - Blood banks require a sensitive, specific, and efficient method to detect clinically significant RBC antibodies. Solid phase antibody screening methods are popular due to high sensitivity and automation. However, the high degree of reactivity detects "false positive" antibodies of questionable clinical significance leading to additional testing. We studied positive rates of Capture-R vs. PEG methods and categorized RBC antibodies identified by initial test results of 33,564 consecutive samples by Capture-R method. Capture-R was positive in 1084/33,564 (3.2%) of samples. Using PEG as our "gold standard", PEG confirmed true positivity (i.e., ≥1 cell reacting) in 710 Capture-R positive samples (65.5%); 374 Capture-R positive samples (34.5%) did not react in PEG (i.e., false positives). Of the 710 samples with true positivity, only 510 showed clinically significant alloantibodies. Using PEG as our "gold standard", only 2/3 of reactions by Capture-R were considered true positives. Because of ease and automation, Capture-R is popular as a screening test, but a more specific method may be helpful in order to identify truly significant alloantibodies.

AB - Blood banks require a sensitive, specific, and efficient method to detect clinically significant RBC antibodies. Solid phase antibody screening methods are popular due to high sensitivity and automation. However, the high degree of reactivity detects "false positive" antibodies of questionable clinical significance leading to additional testing. We studied positive rates of Capture-R vs. PEG methods and categorized RBC antibodies identified by initial test results of 33,564 consecutive samples by Capture-R method. Capture-R was positive in 1084/33,564 (3.2%) of samples. Using PEG as our "gold standard", PEG confirmed true positivity (i.e., ≥1 cell reacting) in 710 Capture-R positive samples (65.5%); 374 Capture-R positive samples (34.5%) did not react in PEG (i.e., false positives). Of the 710 samples with true positivity, only 510 showed clinically significant alloantibodies. Using PEG as our "gold standard", only 2/3 of reactions by Capture-R were considered true positives. Because of ease and automation, Capture-R is popular as a screening test, but a more specific method may be helpful in order to identify truly significant alloantibodies.

KW - Antibody identification

KW - PEG

KW - RBC alloantibodies

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748476326&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748476326&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.transci.2006.02.002

DO - 10.1016/j.transci.2006.02.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 16905362

AN - SCOPUS:33748476326

VL - 35

SP - 19

EP - 23

JO - Transfusion and Apheresis Science

JF - Transfusion and Apheresis Science

SN - 1473-0502

IS - 1

ER -