Janarthanee Suresh1, Barry D Kyle2. 1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, S7N 0W8, Canada. 2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, S7N 0W8, Canada. Barry.Kyle@saskhealthauthority.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many clinicians are aware that certain therapies administered to their patients can have downstream consequences in the form of clinical laboratory test interferences. This is particularly true of laboratory tests that depend on, or directly involve the use of, antibody-based methodology. Intravenously-administered immunoglobulin therapy is one such treatment that can in theory directly impact the results of particular tests in the area of viral serology. This study can help serve as a reference for clinicians researching the impact of intravenously-administered immunoglobulin therapy in the context of positive results that do not reflect the clinical background of the patient. CASE PRESENTATION: We describe a case whereby an intravenously-administered immunoglobulin therapy led to a series of clinical false positives in viral serology, inconsistent with the known patient history as well as recent laboratory results. The patient presented to hospital with petechiae-type bleeding rashes and was investigated for thrombocytopenia after initial blood investigations indicated very low platelets. Subsequent testing of the potential causes for low-platelet involved several viral serology investigations, including hepatitis, cytomegalovirus and human immunodeficiency virus. Initial testing indicated patient exhibited negative status for all viral antibodies and antigens (except immunity for hepatitis B surface antigen antibody). As part of the thrombocytopenia treatment, intravenously-administered immunoglobulin therapy was administered, and subsequent viral serology was ordered. These investigations indicated a positive status for several hepatitis antibodies as well as cytomegalovirus. CONCLUSIONS: This case study illustrates the potential for improper diagnosis of previous or ongoing infection status in patients administered IVIg therapy. Caution should be exercised particularly when interpreting results involving cytomegalovirus and hepatitis.
BACKGROUND: Many clinicians are aware that certain therapies administered to their patients can have downstream consequences in the form of clinical laboratory test interferences. This is particularly true of laboratory tests that depend on, or directly involve the use of, antibody-based methodology. Intravenously-administered immunoglobulin therapy is one such treatment that can in theory directly impact the results of particular tests in the area of viral serology. This study can help serve as a reference for clinicians researching the impact of intravenously-administered immunoglobulin therapy in the context of positive results that do not reflect the clinical background of the patient. CASE PRESENTATION: We describe a case whereby an intravenously-administered immunoglobulin therapy led to a series of clinical false positives in viral serology, inconsistent with the known patient history as well as recent laboratory results. The patient presented to hospital with petechiae-type bleeding rashes and was investigated for thrombocytopenia after initial blood investigations indicated very low platelets. Subsequent testing of the potential causes for low-platelet involved several viral serology investigations, including hepatitis, cytomegalovirus and human immunodeficiency virus. Initial testing indicated patient exhibited negative status for all viral antibodies and antigens (except immunity for hepatitis B surface antigen antibody). As part of the thrombocytopenia treatment, intravenously-administered immunoglobulin therapy was administered, and subsequent viral serology was ordered. These investigations indicated a positive status for several hepatitis antibodies as well as cytomegalovirus. CONCLUSIONS: This case study illustrates the potential for improper diagnosis of previous or ongoing infection status in patients administered IVIg therapy. Caution should be exercised particularly when interpreting results involving cytomegalovirus and hepatitis.
Authors: James Coghill; Terrance Comeau; Thomas Shea; Linda Braddy; Nicholas Bandarenko; Araba Afenyi-Annan; Donald Harvey Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Elena E Perez; Jordan S Orange; Francisco Bonilla; Javier Chinen; Ivan K Chinn; Morna Dorsey; Yehia El-Gamal; Terry O Harville; Elham Hossny; Bruce Mazer; Robert Nelson; Elizabeth Secord; Stanley C Jordan; E Richard Stiehm; Ashley A Vo; Mark Ballow Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Donald M Arnold; Mark A Crowther; Ralph M Meyer; Julie Carruthers; Julie Ditomasso; Nancy M Heddle; Anne McLeod; John G Kelton Journal: Transfusion Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.157