Jacob, Eapen K.

BackgroundThe cold agglutinin (CAGG) titer is offered at our institution to aid in diagnosing cold agglutinin disease (CAD). Our goal was to create a seasonally adjusted reference range using prospective samples and compare it to a reference range generated retrospectively.Study Design and MethodsProspective CAGG titer testing was performed on healthy blood donors. Retrospective electronic analysis was performed on patients in two groups defined by current and historical testing methods. Blood donor testing was performed in January and July to determine if seasonal variation existed. Retrospective patients with conditions associated with CAD were excluded from analysis. Additional prospective CAGG testing using reference range program volunteers was performed to verify blood donor and patient result differences.ResultsTiters from the blood donor and patient cohorts had no age association (p > 0.44). Titers from those same cohorts did not show winter/summer variation (p > 0.11). No sex association was found with titer reference ranges in the blood donor and historical patient cohort. A sex association was found with titers in the current method patient cohort (male 64 to 512 and female ≤64; p < 0.0001). Blood donor CAGG titer lower 95% reference range was not more than 4 while historical and current patient cohorts ranges were not more than 32 and not more than 64, respectively. Reference range volunteers confirmed the narrow reference range in healthy individuals when compared to patients and blood donors.ConclusionProspective blood donor CAGG titers were lower than retrospective patient cohorts. This may be due to blood donors representing a healthier population than the patient cohorts.

Case ReportA 50‐year‐old male with T‐cell lymphoma presented for autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. After granulocyte–colony‐stimulating factor (G‐CSF) mobilization, his peripheral blood CD34+ cell count was 166 × 106/L on the day before collection, which predicted a high yield of CD34+ cells in the apheresis product. The first two collections had yields much lower than expected, triggering an investigation and changes to the apheresis collection methods since mobilization appeared adequate from the peripheral CD34+ values.ResultsChanges to the apheresis collection variables and instrumentation did not improve the yields in the next three collections. The laboratory investigation demonstrated that there was an interfering substance in the patient's plasma that was causing falsely high peripheral blood CD34+ cell values and that the low CD34+ cell yields in the collections were consistent with the actual peripheral blood CD34+ cell value. Based on this finding and after discussion with the clinical service, the patient then received plerixafor to increase the number of circulating CD34+ cells before Collections 6 and 7. The patient went on to achieve the target CD34+ cell dose and subsequently underwent a successful autologous transplant with full hematopoietic engraftment.ConclusionThis case demonstrates the importance of timely and critical review of laboratory results in the context of the specific patient. This case exemplifies how diligent review of laboratory results and open communication among the various teams can positively affect patient outcomes.