Ying Wu1, Ying-Xiu Xiao2, Teng-Yi Huang1, Xian-Yan Zhang1, Huan-Bing Zhou1, Xue-Xuan Zhang1, Ying-E Wu1. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China. 2. Department of Neurology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heterophilic antibodies are still an important source of interference in immunoassays, but reports of interference with D-dimers are rare. Are D-dimer level abnormalities, found in the clinic, caused by heterophilic antibodies as well, or are other mechanisms involved? We will elaborate on this issue through two different examples in this article. METHODS: Serum from two patients with significantly elevated levels of D-dimers were measured and compared by different methods, diluted, and dealt with heterophilic antibody blockers. At the same time, to retrieve the interference, we focused on the cause of D-dimer false positives and made a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: The D-dimer values were normal (0.49 and 0.15 μg/mL) detected with different testing method and decreased after addition of heterophilic antibody blocking reagent. According to literature data, there were 66.7% (4/6) references showed the interference were heterophilic antibody. CONCLUSIONS: The influence of heterophilic antibodies on the measurement of D-dimers remains a big challenge. Different measuring instruments and methods may have significant differences in the measurement of D-dimers. By using a combination of instrumental methods for measuring, incorporating heterophilic antibody blockers, and combining with clinical performance and imaging data, most of the interference can be eliminated.
BACKGROUND: Heterophilic antibodies are still an important source of interference in immunoassays, but reports of interference with D-dimers are rare. Are D-dimer level abnormalities, found in the clinic, caused by heterophilic antibodies as well, or are other mechanisms involved? We will elaborate on this issue through two different examples in this article. METHODS: Serum from two patients with significantly elevated levels of D-dimers were measured and compared by different methods, diluted, and dealt with heterophilic antibody blockers. At the same time, to retrieve the interference, we focused on the cause of D-dimer false positives and made a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: The D-dimer values were normal (0.49 and 0.15 μg/mL) detected with different testing method and decreased after addition of heterophilic antibody blocking reagent. According to literature data, there were 66.7% (4/6) references showed the interference were heterophilic antibody. CONCLUSIONS: The influence of heterophilic antibodies on the measurement of D-dimers remains a big challenge. Different measuring instruments and methods may have significant differences in the measurement of D-dimers. By using a combination of instrumental methods for measuring, incorporating heterophilic antibody blockers, and combining with clinical performance and imaging data, most of the interference can be eliminated.
Authors: Colin Longstaff; Dorothy Adcock; John D Olson; Ian Jennings; Steve Kitchen; Nicola Mutch; Piet Meijer; Emmanuel J Favaloro; Giuseppe Lippi; Jecko Thachil Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2015-11-22 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: C B Anderson; A L Pyle; A Woodworth; M S Cookson; J A Smith; D A Barocas Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2011-11-22 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Fabio Augusto Rodrigues Gonçalves; Bruno Adler Maccagnan Pinheiro Besen; Clarice Antunes de Lima; Aline Pivetta Corá; Antônio José Rodrigues Pereira; Sandro Félix Perazzio; Christiane Pereira Gouvea; Luiz Augusto Marcondes Fonseca; Evelinda Marramon Trindade; Nairo Massakazu Sumita; Alberto José da Silva Duarte; Arnaldo Lichtenstein; Eloisa Bonfa; Edivaldo M Utiyama; Aluisio C Segurado; Beatriz Perondi; Anna Miethke-Morais; Amanda C Montal; Leila Harima; Solange R G Fusco; Marjorie F Silva; Marcelo C Rocha; Izabel Marcilio; Izabel Cristina Rios; Fabiane Yumi Ogihara Kawano; Maria Amélia de Jesus; Ésper George Kallas; Carolina Carmo; Clarice Tanaka; Heraldo Possolo de Souza; Julio F M Marchini; Carlos Carvalho; Juliana C Ferreira; Anna Sara Shafferman Levin; Maura Salaroli Oliveira; Thaís Guimarães; Carolina Dos Santos Lázari; Ester Sabino; Marcello M C Magri; Tarcisio E P Barros-Filho; Maria Cristina Peres Braido Francisco; Silvia F Costa Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 2.365