Wakefield, Laurie L.

AbstractBackgroundSolid‐phase platelet crossmatch (PXM) testing is used to help manage patients with platelet transfusion‐refractoriness. Recently, we published the first report of false‐negative PXM results from prozone effect that was mitigated using sample dilution. This study aimed to describe the prevalence of PXM prozone effect and the levels of class I HLA antibodies (HLA‐Abs) associated with positive PXM results and with false‐negative PXM results from prozone effect.Study Design and MethodsA cross‐sectional study of patients undergoing PXM testing from July 2019 through December 2020 was performed. All PXM tests were run simultaneously using undiluted and 1:4 diluted patient plasma. Prozone effect was defined as a negative PXM result using undiluted patient plasma but a positive PXM result using 1:4 diluted patient plasma.ResultsAmong 59 patients, 830 individual ABO‐compatible PXM results yielded an overall positivity rate of 25.8% (214/830) and a false‐negative rate from prozone effect of 4.7% (10/214). Among the 28 patients with class I HLA‐Ab testing and no other anti‐platelet antibodies, maximum HLA‐Ab mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) was significantly associated with a positive PXM result (p < .0001; AUC approx. 0.9) and categorized into negative (<3700), indeterminate (3700–10300), and positive (>10300) maximum HLA‐Ab MFI zones. Maximum HLA‐Ab MFI, however, was not associated with prozone effect (p = .17; AUC approx. 0.6).DiscussionWhile there is a strong predictive association between class I HLA‐Ab levels and positive PXM results, PXM prozone effect is a common occurrence not associated with class I HLA‐Ab levels, so additional testing with diluted samples should be considered.

BackgroundProzone is a known phenomenon affecting immunoassays causing falsely low or negative results when excess target is present in the test system. For assays used to evaluate immune‐mediated platelet (PLT) transfusion refractoriness, prozone‐like phenomenon has been described in solid‐phase human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibody testing and can be mitigated by diluting samples or pretreating samples with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) or dithiothreitol. Prozone phenomenon has not yet been described in solid‐phase red blood cell (RBC) adherence PLT crossmatch assays.Case ReportA 40‐year‐old female with myeloid sarcoma and PLT transfusion refractoriness underwent repeated solid‐phase PLT crossmatches; however, crossmatch‐compatible PLTs units did not yield adequate PLT count responses. Class I HLA antibody testing with neat, diluted, and EDTA‐pretreated serum demonstrated significant prozone‐like effect and the presence of numerous high strength HLA antibodies. Based on this HLA antibody profile, HLA antigen–negative PLTs gave an adequate PLT count response. It was noted that the HLA types of her crossmatch‐compatible PLTs were incompatible with her HLA antibody profile (eg, HLA‐A2). With ABO‐identical, HLA‐A2–positive PLT units, a solid‐phase PLT crossmatch was repeated using undiluted and diluted EDTA plasma. Undiluted EDTA plasma demonstrated negative or weakly positive PLT crossmatches while the diluted EDTA plasma demonstrated strongly positive PLT crossmatches.ConclusionThe prozone phenomenon can cause false‐negative results in solid‐phase RBC adherence PLT crossmatch assays, which can be mitigated with sample dilution. In immune‐mediated PLT transfusion–refractory patients with high‐strength HLA antibodies, sample dilution should be considered to correctly identify compatible PLT inventory.

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.

Abstract Background: Platelet transfusions are important for supporting patients with hematologic disorders. Refractoriness to platelet transfusions may lead to serious complications and pose a challenge to clinical management. A variety of laboratory strategies to optimize transfusion support in this population are being used; however, data on clinical correlation and success of these interventions is limited. We report the laboratory testing, transfusion yield, and clinical correlation in a cohort of patients receiving cross-matched platelet units. Methods: All consecutive adult patients refractory to platelet transfusions (failure to increment platelet count by 10 x 10(9) times two) with platelet crossmatch performed between June 2014 and April 2016 at our institution were included. Detailed clinical information, laboratory data of the crossmatch results, and Single Antigen Bead (SAB; Luminex) for each platelet unit cross-matched was retrospectively collected. Mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of antibodies directed towards donor platelet HLA antigens identified through SAB were grouped into zones according to previously validated laboratory data: green zone (<4,000 MFI), yellow zone (4000-10000) and red zone (>10,000). Adequate transfusion yield was defined as an absolute increase of at least 10 x 10((9)/L platelets on a post-transfusion (i.e., within 1 hour) sample. Patients with major bleeding per International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria, palpable splenomegaly, fever during transfusion, DIC, active sepsis, or antibodies directed against human platelet antigens were excluded from the final analysis. Importantly, the Hematologist and Pathologist were blinded to the other's data until collection was completed. Data analysis correlating adequate transfusion yield and laboratory parameters was performed. Results: 22 patients (72% female) met our study criteria. All patients had a hematologic malignancy with prolonged pancytopenia after chemotherapy, 4 (18%) had undergone allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. A total of 422 platelet cross-matches were performed, with 17 patients ultimately receiving 46 cross-matched units. The indication for transfusion was: prophylactic 35 (76%), bleeding 4 (9%) and peri-procedural 7 (15%). Ten (22%) transfusion events were excluded: splenomegaly 3, fever 4 and active severe bleeding 2. In one case a post transfusion platelet count was not performed. The overall success rate of transfusion was 64% (23/36). All transfusions leading to an adequate yield had a negative crossmatch. Of the 13 ineffective transfusions, 2 had a positive crossmatch. Based on single antigen MFI assignment, 26 (74%) donor units were classified as green zone, 8 (23%) yellow and 1 (3%) red. The success rates according to the single MFI zone assignment are presented in Table 1. These MFI-defined assignments were predictive of clinically successful transfusions. Conclusion: Selection of appropriate donor platelet units in refractory patients is a challenge that is managed in a variety of ways. While crossmatching is sometimes necessary, a strategy of antigen-avoidance can dramatically increase the identification of potentially effective platelet units for many patients. Understanding of how to navigate HLA antibody data is essential for identifying which HLA antigens should be avoided. Based on these data, in general, our practice is to avoid transfusing a platelet when there is a donor specific antibody of 8,000 MFI or greater. Furthermore, in our dataset there were two patients with both successful and unsuccessful transfusions after receiving crossmatch-negative units with green zone assignment. This finding highlights the limitations of laboratory testing and emphasizes the importance of post-transfusion platelet counts for continuously improving the platelet support of each immune-refractory patient. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Discovery of a novel HLA‐B*45:22 allele in a Middle Eastern heart and lung transplant candidate.

Phased sequencing identified the HLA‐C*07:607 allele in an African‐American patient and sibling donor.

BACKGROUND Platelet transfusion–refractoriness is a challenging and expensive clinical scenario seen most often in patients with hematologic malignancies. Although the majority of platelet transfusion–refractory cases are due to nonimmune causes, a significant minority are caused by alloimmunization against Class I human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) or human platelet antigens (HPAs). Such platelet transfusion–refractory patients can be effectively managed with appropriate antigen‐negative products. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Our institution has developed a diagnostic and management algorithm for the platelet transfusion–refractory patient with an early focus on identifying those cases caused by immune‐mediated factors. Using physical platelet cross‐matches to initially classify platelet transfusion–refractory patients as immune‐mediated or not, cross‐match–compatible inventory is then provided to immune‐mediated patients, whereas subsequent HLA (with or without HPA) testing is performed. RESULTS Our blood donor program performs Class I HLA typing of all repeat platelet donors to facilitate the identification of antigen‐negative platelet units (virtual cross‐matching) as well as the recruitment of HLA‐matched donors. The platelet transfusion–refractoriness algorithm realizes an initial net cost savings once two apheresis platelets are saved from use for each newly identified, immune‐mediated platelet transfusion–refractory patient. CONCLUSION An algorithm utilizing physical platelet cross‐matches, Class I HLA and HPA antibody testing, and upfront Class I HLA typing of platelet donors leads to overall resource savings and improved clinical management for platelet transfusion–refractory patients.

AbstractObjectiveHLA‐DPB1 matching may impact allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) outcomes; however, this locus is not in linkage disequilibrium with the remainder of the HLA genes. After classifying HLA‐DPB1 mismatches based on T‐cell epitope, avoiding non‐permissive mismatches may impact survival. We tested this hypothesis at a single academic institution.MethodsRetrospective HLA‐DPB1 genotyping was performed on 153 adult patients who underwent ASCT and unrelated donors matched for HLA‐A, B, C, DRB1, and DQB1 loci (10/10). Using the ImMunoGeneTics/HLA T‐cell epitope matching algorithm, mismatch status was classified as permissive or non‐permissive.ResultsOf 153 donor‐recipient pairs, 22 (14.4%) were HLA‐DPB1 matches, 64 (42.8%) permissive mismatches, and 67 (43.8%) non‐permissive mismatches. DPB1 mismatch increased risk of chronic graft‐versus‐host disease (cGVHD; RR 2.89 [1.19‐9.53], P=.016) compared with DPB1‐matched transplants, but there were no differences in overall mortality, risk of relapse, or acute GVHD (aGVHD). Combining matches and permissive mismatches and comparing to non‐permissive mismatches, there was no significant difference in overall survival or relapse; however, patients receiving non‐permissive mismatched transplants experienced greater risk of aGVHD overall and severe aGVHD (RR 1.66 [1.13‐2.44], P=.010 and RR 1.97 [1.10‐3.59], P=.024, respectively).ConclusionIn this single‐center study, HLA‐DPB1 matching influenced outcomes of patients undergoing ASCT for hematologic malignancy.