Comparison of prenatal anti-D titration testing by gel and tube methods: A review of the literature.
alloimmunization
pregnancy
prenatal
titration tests
Journal
Transfusion
ISSN: 1537-2995
Titre abrégé: Transfusion
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0417360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2021
06 2021
Historique:
revised:
08
02
2021
received:
29
09
2020
accepted:
16
02
2021
pubmed:
3
4
2021
medline:
23
7
2021
entrez:
2
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Antenatal titration testing is traditionally performed using a manual tube test. Tube testing has limitations; it is a manual, time-consuming method with wide interobserver variability. Gel-based testing is an attractive alternative because it is more precise and can be automated. This study's objective was to summarize the published literature that assessed the relationship between titrations performed by tube and gel for anti-D alloimmunized pregnancies. A comprehensive literature search was performed. Articles were selected if research was original and compared at least five pairs of anti-D titration tests performed by gel and tube. Differences in the number of dilutions between gel and tube methods were compared overall by study and cell type using linear models. A total of 512 articles were identified; eight were included, and titer data from 384 tube and gel pairs were abstracted. The median anti-D titer in tube was 8 (range 0-2048) and by gel was 64 (range 0-4096). Anti-D gel titration results were 2.1 (95% CI; 1-3.3) additional dilutions greater than in tube. Most studies utilized double-dose reagent cells for testing. At a tube titer of 16, the sensitivity and specificity of gel titrations is maximal (91% and 94% respectively) at a gel titer of 64. Overall, titrations performed by gel were two dilutions higher than the corresponding tube titer. For titrations, double-dose reagent cells should be considered to standardize practice. A rigorous prospective study is needed to compare tube titrations with gel titrations using a standardized process.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Antenatal titration testing is traditionally performed using a manual tube test. Tube testing has limitations; it is a manual, time-consuming method with wide interobserver variability. Gel-based testing is an attractive alternative because it is more precise and can be automated. This study's objective was to summarize the published literature that assessed the relationship between titrations performed by tube and gel for anti-D alloimmunized pregnancies.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed. Articles were selected if research was original and compared at least five pairs of anti-D titration tests performed by gel and tube. Differences in the number of dilutions between gel and tube methods were compared overall by study and cell type using linear models.
RESULTS
A total of 512 articles were identified; eight were included, and titer data from 384 tube and gel pairs were abstracted. The median anti-D titer in tube was 8 (range 0-2048) and by gel was 64 (range 0-4096). Anti-D gel titration results were 2.1 (95% CI; 1-3.3) additional dilutions greater than in tube. Most studies utilized double-dose reagent cells for testing. At a tube titer of 16, the sensitivity and specificity of gel titrations is maximal (91% and 94% respectively) at a gel titer of 64.
CONCLUSION
Overall, titrations performed by gel were two dilutions higher than the corresponding tube titer. For titrations, double-dose reagent cells should be considered to standardize practice. A rigorous prospective study is needed to compare tube titrations with gel titrations using a standardized process.
Substances chimiques
Isoantibodies
0
RHO(D) antibody
0
Rho(D) Immune Globulin
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1749-1756Informations de copyright
© 2021 AABB.
Références
Webb J, Delaney M. Red blood cell alloimmunization in the pregnant patient. Transfus Med Rev. 2018;32:213-9.
Lieberman L, Callum J, Cohen R, Cserti-Gazdewich C, Ladhani N, Pendergrast J, et al. Impact of red blood cell alloimmunization on fetal and neonatal outcomes: A single center cohort study. Transfusion. 2020;60(11):2537-46.
Judd WJ. When should tests for unexpected antibodies be done during pregnancy? Transfusion. 2011;51:1366-8.
Allen FH Jr, Diamond LK, Jones AR. Erythroblastosis fetalis. IX. The problems of stillbirth. N Engl J Med. 1954;251:453-9.
Koelewijn JM, Slootweg YM, Folman C, van Kamp IL, Oepkes D, de Haas M. Diagnostic value of laboratory monitoring to predict severe hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn in non-D and non-K-alloimmunized pregnancies. Transfusion. 2020;60:391-9.
Bowman JM, Pollock JM. Amniotic fluid spectrophotometry and early delivery in the management of erythroblastosis fetalis. Pediatrics. 1965;35:815-35.
Bowman JM, Pollock J. Rh immunization in Manitoba: Progress in prevention and management. Can Med Assoc J. 1983;129:343-5.
Bachegowda LS, Cheng YH, Long T, Shaz BH. Impact of uniform methods on interlaboratory antibody titration variability: Antibody titration and uniform methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141:131-8.
Weisbach V, Ziener A, Zimmermann R, Glaser A, Zingsem J, Eckstein R. Comparison of the performance of four microtube column agglutination systems in the detection of red cell alloantibodies. Transfusion. 1999;39:1045-50.
AuBuchon JP, de Wildt-Eggen J, Dumont LJ. Biomedical excellence for safer transfusion C, pathologists TMRCotCoA. Reducing the variation in performance of antibody titrations. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:1194-201.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [monograph on the internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2019. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/.
Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, Team RC. Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-143. [monograph on the Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme.
Lumley T. Meta-analysis. R package version 3.0 [monograph on the Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rmeta.
Adkins B, Maynie P, Chandler C, Garret S, Young P. Orthovision automated analyzers enable efficient and reproducible measurement of prenatal antibody titers though clinical correlation studies are necessary for clinical implementation. Transfusion. 2017;57(Supplement 3):178A-9A.
Novaretti MC, Jens E, Pagliarini T, Bonifacio SL, Dorlhiac-Llacer PE, Chamone DA. Comparison of conventional tube test with diamed gel microcolumn assay for anti-D titration. Clin Lab Haematol. 2003;25:311-5.
Scabet M. Precision of antibody titration in gel vs. tubes. Transfusion. 2012;52:147A-8A.
Thakur MK, Marwaha N, Kumar P, Saha SC, Thakral B, Sharma RR, et al. Comparison of gel test and conventional tube test for antibody detection and titration in D-negative pregnant women: Study from a tertiary-care hospital in North India. Immunohematology. 2010;26:174-7.
Adriaansen MJ, Perry H. Validation of column agglutination technology for blood group alloantibody titration. NZ J Med Lab Sci. 2013;67:92-6.
Fung J, Bortignon L, Colavecchia C, Callum J, Lin Y, Shehata N. Prenatal titers using tube vs. gel technique. Vox Sang. 2018;113:654.
Kneib J, Coberly E. Obstetric antibody titers: Clinical impact of using the more sensitive automated gel method. Transfusion. 2019;59:207A.
Steiner EA, Raritan N, Judd WJ, Combs M, Watkins K, Weissman P, et al. Prenatal antibody titers by the gel test. Transfusion. 2001;41:31S.
Delaney M, Matthews DC. Hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn: Managing the mother, fetus, and newborn. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2015;2015:146-51.
Judd WJ, Scientific Section Coordinating Committee of tA. Practice guidelines for prenatal and perinatal immunohematology, revisited. Transfusion. 2001;41:1445-52.
Judd J, editor. Guidelines for Prenatal and Perinatal Immunohematology. Bethesda, MD: AABB; 2005.