Rachael P Jackman1, Jar-How Lee2, Rui Pei2, Douglas Bolgiano3, Mila Lebedeva1, Sherrill J Slichter3,4, Philip J Norris1,5. 1. Blood Systems Research Institute, San Francisco, California. 2. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Canoga Park, California. 3. Bloodworks Northwest (formerly Puget Sound Blood Center). 4. University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 5. University of California, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the Trial to Reduce Alloimmunization to Platelets (TRAP) study, 101 of 530 subjects became clinically refractory (CR) to platelets (PLTs) without lymphocytotoxicity assay (LCA)-detectable anti-HLA antibodies. The LCA only detects complement-binding antibodies and is less sensitive than newer assays. Utilizing a more sensitive bead-based assay that does not distinguish between complement-binding versus non-complement-binding antibodies, we have previously shown that while many LCA-negative (LCA-) patients do have anti-HLA antibodies, these low- to moderate-level antibodies do not predict refractoriness. As complement can contribute to PLT rejection, we assessed if previously undetected complement-binding antibodies account for refractoriness among LCA- patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Samples from 169 LCA- (69 CR, 100 non-CR) and 20 LCA-positive (LCA+; 10 CR, 10 non-CR) subjects were selected from the TRAP study serum repository. Anti-Class I HLA immunoglobulin (Ig)G and C1q-binding antibodies were measured in serum or plasma with bead-based detection assays. Levels of C1q-binding antibodies were compared between CR and non-CR subjects and correlated with corrected count increments (CCIs). RESULTS: While some of the LCA- subjects had detectable C1q-binding anti-Class I HLA antibodies, and some LCA+ subjects did not, levels were significantly higher among LCA+ subjects. C1q-binding anti-Class I HLA antibody levels did not differ significantly between CR and non-CR among either the LCA- or the LCA+ subjects. Furthermore, there was no significant correlation observed between CCIs and either C1q-binding or any anti-HLA IgG antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: This work confirms that low- to moderate-level anti-Class I antibodies do not drive PLT rejection, suggesting a role for antibody-independent mechanisms.
BACKGROUND: In the Trial to Reduce Alloimmunization to Platelets (TRAP) study, 101 of 530 subjects became clinically refractory (CR) to platelets (PLTs) without lymphocytotoxicity assay (LCA)-detectable anti-HLA antibodies. The LCA only detects complement-binding antibodies and is less sensitive than newer assays. Utilizing a more sensitive bead-based assay that does not distinguish between complement-binding versus non-complement-binding antibodies, we have previously shown that while many LCA-negative (LCA-) patients do have anti-HLA antibodies, these low- to moderate-level antibodies do not predict refractoriness. As complement can contribute to PLT rejection, we assessed if previously undetected complement-binding antibodies account for refractoriness among LCA- patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Samples from 169 LCA- (69 CR, 100 non-CR) and 20 LCA-positive (LCA+; 10 CR, 10 non-CR) subjects were selected from the TRAP study serum repository. Anti-Class I HLA immunoglobulin (Ig)G and C1q-binding antibodies were measured in serum or plasma with bead-based detection assays. Levels of C1q-binding antibodies were compared between CR and non-CR subjects and correlated with corrected count increments (CCIs). RESULTS: While some of the LCA- subjects had detectable C1q-binding anti-Class I HLA antibodies, and some LCA+ subjects did not, levels were significantly higher among LCA+ subjects. C1q-binding anti-Class I HLA antibody levels did not differ significantly between CR and non-CR among either the LCA- or the LCA+ subjects. Furthermore, there was no significant correlation observed between CCIs and either C1q-binding or any anti-HLA IgG antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: This work confirms that low- to moderate-level anti-Class I antibodies do not drive PLT rejection, suggesting a role for antibody-independent mechanisms.
Authors: Emmanuel Fadeyi; Sharon Adams; Brett Peterson; Julia Hackett; Phyllis Byrne; Harvey G Klein; Francesco M Marincola; Susan F Leitman; David F Stroncek Journal: Transfusion Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Martina Schnaidt; Christof Weinstock; Marija Jurisic; Barbara Schmid-Horch; Andrea Ender; Dorothee Wernet Journal: Transplantation Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: M G Massad; D J Cook; S K Schmitt; N G Smedira; J F McCarthy; R L Vargo; P M McCarthy Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: G Andreu; J Dewailly; C Leberre; M C Quarre; M L Bidet; R Tardivel; L Devers; Y Lam; E Soreau; C Boccaccio Journal: Blood Date: 1988-09 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Rachael P Jackman; Xutao Deng; Douglas Bolgiano; Mila Lebedeva; John W Heitman; Michael P Busch; Sherrill J Slichter; Philip J Norris Journal: Blood Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: K Sintnicolaas; M van Marwijk Kooij; H C van Prooijen; B A van Dijk; W L van Putten; F H Claas; V M Novotny; A Brand Journal: Blood Date: 1995-02-01 Impact factor: 22.113