E B Austin1, Y McIntosh. 1. Manchester Blood Centre, Manchester, UK. eric.austin@nbs.nhs.uk
Abstract
UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND Three flow cytometric methods for anti-D quantification have been published. All use different cell sensitization and antibody detection conditions that may lead to varied results. Therefore, a direct comparison of the three methods is timely. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The published flow cytometric methods and two new in-house modifications were compared. Ten serum samples containing anti-D at levels between 11.6 and 915 IU per mL were selected for analysis, and each was tested a minimum of three times. Anti-D bound to cells was detected with fluorescence-labeled anti-human IgG reagents. RESULTS The interassay CV of the standard curves for each of the five methods was less than 10 percent. The intra-assay CV was consistently <10 percent with four out of the five methods, but, by the fifth method, it was >20 percent in more than one-third of the tests. In 72 percent of the sample and method combinations, the interassay CV was <25 percent. Plotting of the mean anti-D value for each sample as a percentage of the value determined by an automated technique (AutoAnalyzer) revealed wide variability between the methods. CONCLUSION: Anti-D quantification by flow cytometry is influenced by the serum antibody characteristics and the method used. The differences between the flow cytometric and AutoAnalyzer techniques indicate that further validation of the flow cytometric method is required before routine use.
UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND Three flow cytometric methods for anti-D quantification have been published. All use different cell sensitization and antibody detection conditions that may lead to varied results. Therefore, a direct comparison of the three methods is timely. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The published flow cytometric methods and two new in-house modifications were compared. Ten serum samples containing anti-D at levels between 11.6 and 915 IU per mL were selected for analysis, and each was tested a minimum of three times. Anti-D bound to cells was detected with fluorescence-labeled anti-human IgG reagents. RESULTS The interassay CV of the standard curves for each of the five methods was less than 10 percent. The intra-assay CV was consistently <10 percent with four out of the five methods, but, by the fifth method, it was >20 percent in more than one-third of the tests. In 72 percent of the sample and method combinations, the interassay CV was <25 percent. Plotting of the mean anti-D value for each sample as a percentage of the value determined by an automated technique (AutoAnalyzer) revealed wide variability between the methods. CONCLUSION: Anti-D quantification by flow cytometry is influenced by the serum antibody characteristics and the method used. The differences between the flow cytometric and AutoAnalyzer techniques indicate that further validation of the flow cytometric method is required before routine use.