DiGuardo, Margaret

Background Daratumumab (DARA), a human IgG1 K monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, is used to treat refractory multiple myeloma patients. CD38 is expressed on many cell types (RBCs, granulocytes, lymphocytes, etc.), and thus, DARA can interfere with serological tests. Information regarding how DARA affects anti‐granulocyte antibody (AGA) testing and optimal neutralization of DARA will help laboratories perform accurate testing. Methods Screening of AGA was performed by the granulocyte agglutination test (GAT) and the flow cytometric granulocyte immunofluorescence test (Flow‐GIFT). Samples were tested from patients on DARA ( n = 7), non‐transfused blood donors (healthy controls, n = 7) and AGA reactive samples (positive controls, n = 5). Two neutralization experiments, CD38 removal with DTT and DARA epitope blockage with mouse anti‐CD38, were evaluated. Results Positive reactivity of human IgG binding was observed in 5/7 DARA cases when tested by Flow‐GIFT; however, all 7 cases had negative GAT agglutination results. Further studies by Flow‐GIFT revealed DARA concentrations >0·63 μg/ml bound to granulocytes. DARA binding was negated by DTT though a reduced Flow‐GIFT sensitivity was observed in positive control samples due to increased background detection of human IgG. Mouse anti‐CD38 neutralized the detection of human IgG observed in DARA‐treated patient serum without effecting controls. Conclusion We established that DARA can interfere with AGA testing, leading to false positive Flow‐GIFT results without causing GAT agglutination. DTT treatment increased background binding of secondary antibodies causing a decrease in Flow‐GIFT sensitivity. In comparison, blockage of the DARA binding epitope using mouse anti‐CD38 antibody was effective in neutralizing DARA interference while maintaining Flow‐GIFT sensitivity.

Background: Molecular genetic testing is increasingly utilized in clinical care, typically with peripheral blood as the preferred specimen. Despite the prevalence of therapeutic blood transfusions, whether donor DNA is present in a sufficient quantity to interfere with recipient genetic testing has not been systematically studied. Microchimerism secondary to transfusion of blood products with donor leukocytes has been well-documented in trauma patients receiving whole blood; however, most medical centers currently transfuse leukoreduced (LR) red blood cell products for non-trauma patients. The degree of leukoreduction varies among centers, but to meet AABB standards must be <5x106 white blood cells (WBC) in 95% of units tested. We sought to determine what quantity, if any, of infused LR or non-LR (NLR) products leads to detectable microchimerism that may impact genetic test results. Methods: We performed an in vitro spiking study utilizing four whole blood units collected from different anonymous donors. Three were leukoreduced at varying levels in order to establish a LR (per our institutional guidelines and standards), a partially leukoreduced (PLR) and a NLR unit, which were then considered "donors". The 4th unit was divided to generate two separate "recipients". The first half was left untreated simulating an immunocompetent recipient while the other was leukoreduced to mimic a leukopenic recipient. Based on a 70 kg patient, we calculated the volume of blood from each "donor" to mix with aliquots of each "recipient" to represent a transfusion of 2, 5, or 16 units, with 2 units corresponding to a double apheresis red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and 16 units corresponding to a near total volume transfusion. DNA was extracted from each individual unit as well as all "transfused" combinations within 24 hours of mixing. Chimerism analysis was then performed by STR analysis using the GlobalFiler PCR amplification kit followed by ChimerMarker analysis software. Results: None of the LR units, despite volume transfused, revealed any level of microchimerism in either the immunocompetent or leukopenic "recipients". The PLR transfused combinations displayed levels ranging from 0.14% to 1.52% of donor chimerism for the immunocompetent "recipient", which is below the limit of detection for most clinical assays evaluating germline genetic variation, and 6.3% to 27.78% of donor chimerism for the leukopenic "recipient", which would be expected to impact a subset of clinical genetic assays. The NLR transfused combinations displayed levels ranging from 13.28% to 95.66% of donor chimerism. Discussion:In vitro "transfusion" of LR RBCs into simulated immunocompetent or leukopenic samples does not lead to detectable donor DNA. However, "transfusion" of PLR and NLR units in an in vitro model reveals significant levels of microchimerism dependent on volume transfused and immune status of the "recipient" which implies possible risk for impact on clinical genetic tests. The minimum time required for clearance of donor leukocytes in the recipient is unknown; we were unable to fully evaluate this and other variables in our in vitro system, but follow-up in vivo studies addressing this question are planned. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.