Literature DB >> 33036787

The utility of second single antigen bead assay: Clearing the water or stirring up mud?

Harold C Sullivan1, Scott M Krummey2, Howard M Gebel2, Robert A Bray2.   

Abstract

Though solid-phase single antigen bead (SAB) testing has provided major advances to the HLA community and organ allocation, it has not been without limitations. In particular, false-positive reactions lead to interpretative challenges and the potential to preclude a transplant if the corresponding antigens are deemed unacceptable. Two different vendor platforms are commercially available for SAB testing, one more recent than the other. The aim herein was to assess the benefit of using the newer SAB platform in situations where the primary platform yielded suspicious (specifically, false positive) reactions. Therefore, 42 serum samples with commonly encountered false-positive patterns observed in our laboratory were tested with the newer platform. Cases were classified as resolved, equivalent, or divergent based on whether the second platform produced no reactivity, the same pattern, or a distinctly different pattern compared to the primary platform, respectively. Approximately 33% of cases were resolved, 46% were equivalent, and 21% were divergent. The project revealed advantages of adding a second SAB platform to the laboratory's test menu including resolving challenging samples and including broader coverage of different alleles and unique class II alpha/beta subunit combinations. However, the challenges of validating, maintaining, and billing for another test method in the laboratory may be barriers to routine use.
Copyright © 2020 American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  False-positive reactions; HLA antibody; Single Antigen Bead

Year:  2020        PMID: 33036787      PMCID: PMC8336427          DOI: 10.1016/j.humimm.2020.09.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Immunol        ISSN: 0198-8859            Impact factor:   2.850


  19 in total

1.  Renal Transplantation With Final Allocation Based on the Virtual Crossmatch.

Authors:  C P Johnson; J J Schiller; Y R Zhu; S Hariharan; A M Roza; D C Cronin; B D Shames; T M Ellis
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 8.086

Review 2.  Utility of the virtual crossmatch in solid organ transplantation.

Authors:  Patrizia Amico; Gideon Hönger; Jürg Steiger; Stefan Schaub
Journal:  Curr Opin Organ Transplant       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.640

Review 3.  The coordination of allocation: Logistics of kidney organ allocation to highly sensitized patients.

Authors:  John Lunz; Lisa Hinsdale; Casey King; Robin Pastush; Magnolia Buenvenida; Michael Harmon
Journal:  Hum Immunol       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 2.850

4.  HLA antibody specification using single-antigen beads--a technical solution for the prozone effect.

Authors:  Martina Schnaidt; Christof Weinstock; Marija Jurisic; Barbara Schmid-Horch; Andrea Ender; Dorothee Wernet
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2011-09-15       Impact factor: 4.939

Review 5.  Calculated PRA (CPRA): the new measure of sensitization for transplant candidates.

Authors:  J M Cecka
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 8.086

Review 6.  The Virtual Crossmatch: An Essential Tool for Transplanting Sensitized Patients.

Authors:  Annette M Jackson
Journal:  Clin Transpl       Date:  2014

7.  A virtual crossmatch protocol significantly increases access of highly sensitized patients to deceased donor kidney transplantation.

Authors:  Adam W Bingaman; Cathi L Murphey; Juan Palma-Vargas; Francis Wright
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2008-12-27       Impact factor: 4.939

8.  Comprehensive assessment and standardization of solid phase multiplex-bead arrays for the detection of antibodies to HLA.

Authors:  E F Reed; P Rao; Z Zhang; H Gebel; R A Bray; I Guleria; J Lunz; T Mohanakumar; P Nickerson; A R Tambur; A Zeevi; P S Heeger; D Gjertson
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 8.086

9.  Lot-to-lot variability in HLA antibody screening using a multiplexed bead-based assay.

Authors:  Manish J Gandhi; Danielle M Carrick; Sarah Jenkins; Steven De Goey; Nancy A Ploeger; Gregory A Wilson; Jar How Lee; Jeffrey L Winters; James R Stubbs; Pearl Toy; Philip J Norris
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2013-01-10       Impact factor: 3.157

Review 10.  Understanding solid-phase HLA antibody assays and the value of MFI.

Authors:  Harold C Sullivan; Howard M Gebel; Robert A Bray
Journal:  Hum Immunol       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 2.850

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.