| Literature DB >> 24433319 |
L L Caviezel1, K Raj, U Giger.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Difficulties with the direct antiglobulin test (DAT) and its apparent lack of sensitivity and specificity for immune-mediated hemolytic anemia (IMHA) in dogs have raised skepticism regarding its diagnostic value.Entities:
Keywords: Autoantibodies; Direct antiglobulin test; Immune-mediated hemolytic anemia; Osmotic fragility
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24433319 PMCID: PMC4004353 DOI: 10.1111/jvim.12292
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Vet Intern Med ISSN: 0891-6640 Impact factor: 3.333
Figure 1Capillary (A) and immunochromatographic strip (B) method for direct antiglobulin testing showing positive (+) and negative (−) DAT results. Note capillaries are positioned in 60° angle. Legend: C, control band; AT, antiglobulin testing band.
Hematology results of 105 anemic and nonanemic dogs with negative or positive DAT results (based upon the Microtiter‐M method).
| Anemia | Nonanemic | Anemic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| DAT result | DAT‐ | DAT‐ | DAT+ |
| Dogs tested, n | 59 | 26 | 20 |
| PCV (%, mean ± SD) | 51.1 ± 4.1 | 24.4 ± 6.4 | 17.5 ± 5.6 |
| Median (range) | 53 (40–56) | 25 (11–36) | 16 (9–31) |
| Plasma Hb (g/dL, mean ± SD) | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.8 |
| Median (range) | 0.0 (0–1.3) | 0.2 (0.1–0.5) | 0.3 (0–3.3) |
| Spherocytosis, n (%) | 0 | 0 | 15 (75) |
| Autogglutination prewashing, n/n tested (%) | 0/59 (0) | 4/26 (15) | 16/20 (80) |
| Increased osmotic fragility, n/n tested (%) | 0/28 (0) | 4/12 (33) | 15/15 (100) |
n, number of dogs; SD, standard deviation; Hb, hemoglobin
Figure 2Comparison of DAT results of Microtiter‐M with Microtiter‐V (A), Strip (B) and Gel (C) methods for 105 dogs. Microtiters are expressed logarithmically; Strip and Gel grading is shown linearly. Each bullet (♦) represents results from both methods compared for each sample with a linear regression (—). The shaded area refers to the range of DAT‐ results. Numbers of samples tested are varying, depending on the applied method.
Osmotic fragility test results: Grouping according to shape of osmotic fragility curves and average saline concentrations for defined lysis values in 55 dogs.
| Osmotic Fragility Curves | Anemia | DAT | n | Osmotic Fragility (mean ± SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5% | 50% | 90% | ||||
| Normal | No | − | 28 | 0.50 ± 0.06 | 0.40 ± 0.05 | 0.29 ± 0.10 |
| Yes | − | 8 | 0.54 ± 0.05 | 0.42 ± 0.04 | 0.30 ± 0.08 | |
| Right‐shifted | Yes | − | 4 | 0.65 ± 0.02 | 0.52 ± 0.01 | 0.44 ± 0.04 |
| Right‐shifted or flattened | yes | + | 15 | 0.76 ± 0.07 | 0.57 ± 0.11 | 0.30 ± 0.13 |
n, number of dogs; SD, standard deviation; OF, osmotic fragility.
Difference between mean hemolysis at OF 5% and 50% of 28 nonanemic DAT‐ dogs with a normal OF and 15 anemic DAT+ dogs with an increased OF (P = .002).
Difference between mean hemolysis at OF 5%, 50%, 90% of 8 anemic DAT‐ dogs with a normal OF and 4 anemic DAT‐ dogs with an increased OF (P < .001).
Difference between mean hemolysis at OF 5% (P = .002) and 90% (P = .034) of 4 anemic DAT‐ and 15 DAT+ dogs with an increased OF.
Figure 3Result curves of Osmotic fragility tests (A) DAT+ () and DAT‐ () control dog. Note right‐shifted curve for DAT+ dog. (B) Note right‐shifted and flattened curve, same as above.