P090 Comparison of labxpress full automation vs. biotek semi-automation for detection of HLA antibodies in solid phase assays – How instrument can influence detection of HLA and epitope targets

2019 ◽  
Vol 80 ◽  
pp. 119
Author(s):  
Steven Huynh ◽  
Michiko Taniguchi ◽  
Nica San ◽  
Maria Ulloa ◽  
Jean F. Garcia-Gomez ◽  
...  
Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (15) ◽  
pp. 2839-2846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minoko Takanashi ◽  
Yoshiko Atsuta ◽  
Koki Fujiwara ◽  
Hideki Kodo ◽  
Shunro Kai ◽  
...  

Abstract The majority of cord blood transplantations (CBTs) have human leukocyte antigen (HLA) disparities. We investigated the impact that patients' pretransplantation anti-HLA antibodies have on the outcome of CBTs. Testing for anti-HLA antibody and its specificity was performed retrospectively at the Japanese Red Cross Tokyo Blood Center with sensitive solid-phase antibody detection assays. Among 386 CBTs, which were first myeloablative stem cell transplantations for malignancies and used a single unit of cord blood, 89 tested positive. Among the antibody-positive group, the cord blood did not have the corresponding HLA type for the antibody in 69 cases (ab-positive), while 20 cases had specificity against the cord blood HLA (positive-vs-CB). Cumulative incidence of neutrophil recovery 60 days after transplantation was 83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79%-87%) for the antibody-negative group (ab-negative), 73% (95% CI, 61%-82%) for ab-positive, but only 32% (95% CI, 13%-53%) for the positive-vs-CB (P < .0001, Gray test). With multivariate analysis, the ab-positive showed significantly lower neutrophil recovery than the ab-negative (relative risk [RR] = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.49-0.96, p = .027). The positive-vs-CB had significantly lower neutrophil recovery (RR = 0.23, 95% CI, 0.09-0.56, P = .001) and platelet recovery (RR = 0.31, 95% CI, 0.12-0.81, P = .017) than the ab-negative. Patients' pretransplantation anti-HLA antibodies should be tested and considered in the selection of cord blood.


2009 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. S41
Author(s):  
Hugo P. Sondermeijer ◽  
Eric Ho ◽  
Geo Serban ◽  
George Vlad ◽  
Donna Mancini ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. S54
Author(s):  
Eric Wagner ◽  
Michèle Paré ◽  
Raynald Roy
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 80 ◽  
pp. 205
Author(s):  
Rafah Bamrdrouf ◽  
Ashraf Dada ◽  
Rayan Bawayan ◽  
Najla Zabani ◽  
Mohammed Aljohani ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 79 ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Molly Weisert ◽  
Jondavid Menteer ◽  
Nicholas Fotiadis ◽  
William Lyle ◽  
Lee Ann Baxter-Lowe

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Dieplinger ◽  
Vanessa Ditt ◽  
Wolfgang Arns ◽  
Andrea Huppertz ◽  
Tuelay Kisner ◽  
...  

HLA ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 88 (3) ◽  
pp. 110-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. G. Kamburova ◽  
B. W. Wisse ◽  
I. Joosten ◽  
W. A. Allebes ◽  
A. van der Meer ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald Schlaf ◽  
Susanne Apel ◽  
Anja Wahle ◽  
Wolfgang W. Altermann

In order to select recipients without donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies, the complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (CDC-CM) was established as the standard procedure about 40 years ago. However, the interpretability of this functional assay strongly depends on the vitality of isolated donors’ lymphocytes. Since the application of therapeutic antibodies for the immunosuppressive regimen falsifies the outcome of the CDC-crossmatch as a result of these antibodies’ complement-activating capacity in the recipients’ sera, we looked for an alternative methodical approach. We here present 27 examples of AB0 blood group-incompatible living kidney allograft recipients who, due to their treatment with the humanized chimeric monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody Rituximab, did not present valid outcomes of CDC-based pretransplant cross-matching. Additionally, four cases of posttransplant cross-matching after living kidney allografting and consequent treatment with the therapeutic anti-CD25 antibody Basiliximab (Simulect) due to acute biopsy-proven rejection episodes are presented and compared regarding CDC- and ELISA-based crossmatch outcomes. In all cases, it became evident that the classical CDC-based crossmatch was completely unfeasible for the detection of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies, whereas ELISA-based cross-matching not requiring vital cells was not artificially affected. We conclude that ELISA-based cross-matching is a valuable tool to methodically circumvent false positive CDC-based crossmatch results in the presence of therapeutically applied antibodies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document