BACKGROUND: For the detection of HLA antibodies, solid-phase tests using purified HLA antigens are increasingly used. In this study, we analyzed the panel reactive antibody (PRA) test results using ELISA and Luminex methods, and the results were compared with those of crossmatch test. METHODS: A total of 111 sera including 90 sera from kidney transplanted patients were tested. ELISA-PRA was performed using Lambda Antigen Tray Class I and II Mixed kits (One Lambda Inc., USA) and additional test was performed to identify HLA specificities. Luminex-PRA tests were performed using LABScreen Mixed kits (One Lambda Inc., USA) and LIFECODES LifeScreen Deluxe kits (Tepnel Co., USA). RESULTS: The positive rates of PRA were higher in Tepnel (P=0.006) and One Lambda Luminex (P<0.001) methods than ELISA, without significant difference between two Luminex methods (P=0.087). The overall concordance rate among the three PRA tests was 62.2% (69/111). The positive and negative predictive values of PRA tests for the flow cytometric crossmatch were 33.3-45.7% and 85.7-89.5%, respectively. Of the two Luminex methods, One Lambda showed higher positive rate than Tepnel for the detection of class I antibodies. The sensitivity of pretransplant PRA for the detection of posttransplant acute rejection episodes was higher in Luminex (P=0.007 for Tepnel, P=0.003 for One lambda) than ELISA method. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods used to detect HLA antibodies showed discrepant results. As the Luminex method was more sensitive than ELISA for the detection of HLA antibodies, it can be used as a routine test in the transplantation laboratory.
BACKGROUND: For the detection of HLA antibodies, solid-phase tests using purified HLA antigens are increasingly used. In this study, we analyzed the panel reactive antibody (PRA) test results using ELISA and Luminex methods, and the results were compared with those of crossmatch test. METHODS: A total of 111 sera including 90 sera from kidney transplanted patients were tested. ELISA-PRA was performed using Lambda Antigen Tray Class I and II Mixed kits (One Lambda Inc., USA) and additional test was performed to identify HLA specificities. Luminex-PRA tests were performed using LABScreen Mixed kits (One Lambda Inc., USA) and LIFECODES LifeScreen Deluxe kits (Tepnel Co., USA). RESULTS: The positive rates of PRA were higher in Tepnel (P=0.006) and One Lambda Luminex (P<0.001) methods than ELISA, without significant difference between two Luminex methods (P=0.087). The overall concordance rate among the three PRA tests was 62.2% (69/111). The positive and negative predictive values of PRA tests for the flow cytometric crossmatch were 33.3-45.7% and 85.7-89.5%, respectively. Of the two Luminex methods, One Lambda showed higher positive rate than Tepnel for the detection of class I antibodies. The sensitivity of pretransplant PRA for the detection of posttransplant acute rejection episodes was higher in Luminex (P=0.007 for Tepnel, P=0.003 for One lambda) than ELISA method. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods used to detect HLA antibodies showed discrepant results. As the Luminex method was more sensitive than ELISA for the detection of HLA antibodies, it can be used as a routine test in the transplantation laboratory.
Authors: Delynn M Moss; Jeffrey W Priest; Kathy Hamlin; Gordana Derado; Joel Herbein; William A Petri; Patrick J Lammie Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 2.345