Susan T. Johnson

One center's experience: the serology and drugs associated with drug-induced immune hemolytic anemia--a new paradigm.

BACKGROUND: Drug‐induced immune hemolytic anemia (DIIHA) is an uncommon finding characterized by a sudden decrease in hemoglobin after treatment with the putative drug. The full range of drugs causing DIIHA and the initial serologic presentation are not fully appreciated. This work identifies additional drugs associated with DIIHA and offers additional insights about diagnosis.

It's time to phase in RHD genotyping for patients with a serologic weak D phenotype

In 2014, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Transfusion Medicine Resource Committee (TMRC) reported the results of a survey of more than 3100 laboratories concerning their policies and procedures for testing serological weak D phenotypes and administration of Rh immune globulin (RhIG).1 Among the findings of this survey is the observation that there is a lack of standard practice in the United States for interpreting the RhD type when a serological weak D phenotype is detected. In some laboratories, an individual with a serological weak D phenotype, especially if a blood donor, is interpreted to be RhD-positive. In the same or other laboratories, especially if a serological weak D phenotype is detected in a female of child-bearing potential, the individual is likely to be managed as RhD-negative for transfusions and, if pregnant, considered a candidate for RhIG. Also, the performance characteristics of serological typing methods for RhD vary. For patients, including pregnant women, the majority of laboratories have policies and procedures that do not use the indirect antiglobulin (weak D) test, thereby avoiding detection of a serological weak D phenotype so that the RhD type will be interpreted to be RhD-negative. Other laboratories typically perform a weak D test for the same category of patients. For blood donors and newborns, it is standard practice for laboratories to have policies and procedures for RhD typing to ensure that serological weak D phenotypes are detected and interpreted as RhD-positive.1 The goal of these RhD typing practices is to protect RhD-negative persons from inadvertent alloimmunization to the D antigen by exposure to RhD-positive RBCs, including RBCs expressing a serological weak D phenotype. Although there has not been a recent prospective study in the United States, it is estimated that current RhD typing practice, together with contemporary obstetrical practices for administration of antepartum and postpartum RhIG, is 98.4 to 99 percent successful in preventing RhD alloimmunization and RhD hemolytic disease of the fetus/newborn.2 However, there are unwarranted consequences associated with the practice of not determining the RHD genotype of persons with a serological weak D phenotype, including unnecessary injections of RhIG and transfusion of RhD-negative RBCs -- always in short supply -- when RhD-positive RBCs could be transfused safely. CAP’s TMRC reviewed the current status of RHD genotyping and proposed that selective integration of RHD genotyping in laboratory practices could improve the accuracy of RhD typing results, reduce unnecessary administration of RhIG in women with a serological weak D phenotype, and decrease unnecessary transfusion of RhD-negative RBCs to recipients with a serological weak D phenotype.1 In response to the findings of the CAP TMRC survey, AABB and CAP convened a Work Group on RHD Genotyping and charged it with developing recommendations to clarify clinical issues related to RhD typing in persons with a serological weak D phenotype. As an initial step for formulating recommendations, the Work Group reviewed the current state of molecular science of RHD, including more than 140 publications covering background;1-12 D variants with anti-D;13-29 molecular basis of serological weak D phenotypes;30-92 reviews, editorials and commentaries;93-129 technical resources;130-142 and standards and guidelines.143-149 This Commentary summarizes the proceedings and recommendations of the Work Group.

High‐throughput red blood cell antigen genotyping using a nanofluidic real‐time polymerase chain reaction platform

BACKGROUND: Serologic testing of donors to obtain antigen‐negative blood for transfusion is limited by availability and quality of reagents. Where sequence variant information is available, molecular typing platforms can be used to determine the presence of a variant allele and offer a high‐throughput format correlated to the blood group antigen. We have investigated a flexible high‐throughput platform to screen blood donors for antigen genotypes in the African American population.

Mass-scale red cell genotyping of blood donors.

Blood centers are able to recruit and process large numbers of blood donations to meet the demand for antigen-matched blood. However, there are limitations with the use of hemagglutination that can be circumvented with blood group genotyping. Antisera do not exist for several clinically important blood group antigens and many methods have been developed (direct hemagglutination, indirect antiglobulin-dependent, solid phase, or gel column). There is increasing interest to apply mass-scale red cell genotyping of blood donors to find rare (predicted) phenotypes, rare combinations of antigens and locus haplotypes, and to have access to information on the common clinically relevant blood group antigens. This review outlines technological advances, emerging algorithms, and the future of mass-scale red cell genotyping of blood donors.

It's time to phase in RHD genotyping for patients with a serologic weak D phenotype. College of American Pathologists Transfusion Medicine Resource Committee Work Group.

In 2014, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Transfusion Medicine Resource Committee (TMRC) reported the results of a survey of more than 3100 laboratories concerning their policies and procedures for testing serological weak D phenotypes and administration of Rh immune globulin (RhIG).1 Among the findings of this survey is the observation that there is a lack of standard practice in the United States for interpreting the RhD type when a serological weak D phenotype is detected. In some laboratories, an individual with a serological weak D phenotype, especially if a blood donor, is interpreted to be RhD-positive. In the same or other laboratories, especially if a serological weak D phenotype is detected in a female of child-bearing potential, the individual is likely to be managed as RhD-negative for transfusions and, if pregnant, considered a candidate for RhIG. Also, the performance characteristics of serological typing methods for RhD vary. For patients, including pregnant women, the majority of laboratories have policies and procedures that do not use the indirect antiglobulin (weak D) test, thereby avoiding detection of a serological weak D phenotype so that the RhD type will be interpreted to be RhD-negative. Other laboratories typically perform a weak D test for the same category of patients. For blood donors and newborns, it is standard practice for laboratories to have policies and procedures for RhD typing to ensure that serological weak D phenotypes are detected and interpreted as RhD-positive.1 The goal of these RhD typing practices is to protect RhD-negative persons from inadvertent alloimmunization to the D antigen by exposure to RhD-positive RBCs, including RBCs expressing a serological weak D phenotype. Although there has not been a recent prospective study in the United States, it is estimated that current RhD typing practice, together with contemporary obstetrical practices for administration of antepartum and postpartum RhIG, is 98.4 to 99 percent successful in preventing RhD alloimmunization and RhD hemolytic disease of the fetus/newborn.2 However, there are unwarranted consequences associated with the practice of not determining the RHD genotype of persons with a serological weak D phenotype, including unnecessary injections of RhIG and transfusion of RhD-negative RBCs -- always in short supply -- when RhD-positive RBCs could be transfused safely. CAP’s TMRC reviewed the current status of RHD genotyping and proposed that selective integration of RHD genotyping in laboratory practices could improve the accuracy of RhD typing results, reduce unnecessary administration of RhIG in women with a serological weak D phenotype, and decrease unnecessary transfusion of RhD-negative RBCs to recipients with a serological weak D phenotype.1 In response to the findings of the CAP TMRC survey, AABB and CAP convened a Work Group on RHD Genotyping and charged it with developing recommendations to clarify clinical issues related to RhD typing in persons with a serological weak D phenotype. As an initial step for formulating recommendations, the Work Group reviewed the current state of molecular science of RHD, including more than 140 publications covering background;1-12 D variants with anti-D;13-29 molecular basis of serological weak D phenotypes;30-92 reviews, editorials and commentaries;93-129 technical resources;130-142 and standards and guidelines.143-149 This Commentary summarizes the proceedings and recommendations of the Work Group.

Prenatal genotyping of the Duffy blood group system by allele-specific polymerase chain reaction

Maternal allo‐immunization to antigens of the Duffy blood group system can result in haemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN), therefore, the application of allele‐specific polymerase chain reaction (ASPCR) for prenatal genotyping of the Duffy antigen system to identify pregnancies at risk for HDN was evaluated. Oligonucleotide primers were designed for ASPCR of FYA, FYB and nullFY alleles. A validation study was performed using DNA isolated from 94 serotyped whole blood samples and 8 amniocentesis samples. A concordance rate of 100 per cent was observed between serotyping and ASPCR detection of the FYA, FYB and nullFY alleles. This assay is particularly useful for rapid genotyping of fetal amniotic cells to identify pregnancies at risk for HDN due to maternal–fetal incompatibilities within the Duffy blood group system. Copyright

Prenatal genotyping of Jka and Jkb of the human Kidd blood group system by allele‐specific polymerase chain reaction

An allele‐specific polymerase chain reaction (ASPCR) assay for prenatal genotyping of the Kidd antigen system in order to identify pregnancies at risk for haemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN) was developed. Oligonucleotide primers were designed for ASPCR of JKA and JKB. A validation study was performed using DNA isolated from 54 serotyped whole blood samples and 8 amniocentesis samples. A concordance rate of 100 per cent was observed between serotyping and ASPCR detection of the JKA and JKB alleles. Experiments were conducted to quantify the maternal contamination that could be tolerated in Kidd ASPCR assays. The sensitivity of this assay ranged from 0·2 per cent when detecting the presence of JKB and JKA background, to 2 per cent for detecting the presence of JKA in a JKB background. This sensitive assay is particularly useful for rapid genotyping of fetal amniotic cells to identify pregnancies at risk for HDN due to incompatibilities within the Kidd blood group system. Copyright

Molecular determination of RHD zygosity:predicting risk of hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn related to anti‐D

Development of an accurate molecular method for paternal RHD zygosity to predict risk to a fetus for hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) related to anti‐D.

A prospective study for prevalence and/or development of transfusion-transmitted infections in multiply transfused thalassemia major patients

Objective: To evaluate the rate of seropositivity to hepatitis B and C and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infections among children with β-thalassemia major receiving multiple transfusions in Ahmedabad, India, compared with healthy controls. Materials and Methods: The study was performed during January 2007 to January 2009 on multi-transfused children suffering with β-thalassemia major registered in the Prathama Blood Centre, Ahmedabad; Jeevandeep hospital, Ahmedabad; and Red Cross Blood Centre, Ahmedabad, and investigated for the prevalence and development of transfusion-transmitted infections. Hepatitis B surface Antigen (HBsAg), anti-Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Antibodies (Ab), and HIV Ab were checked using a fourth-generation Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). Positive tests were confirmed by western blots. Healthy blood donors were used for the control group. Results: Hepatitis B surface antigen, anti-HCV Ab, and HIV Ab were positive in one of 96 (1.04%; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.17–1.3), 24 of 96 (25%; 95% CI = 11.4–14.2), and one of 96 (1.04%; 95% CI = 0.12–1.3), respectively. The rate of anti-HCV Ab was significantly higher in multi-transfused children suffering with β-thalassemia major. In thalassemia patients, the rate of positive anti-HCV Ab was significantly higher than that for positive HBsAg (P<0.001) and HIV Ab (P<0.001). Conclusion: It is concluded that HCV is the current major problem in multi-transfused children with thalassemia major and more careful pretransfusion screening of blood for anti-HCV must be introduced in blood centers.

Drug-induced immune hemolytic anemia

Drug-induced immune hemolytic anemia (DIIHA) is an uncommon finding but when it occurs may present in a dramatic fashion. It is characterized by a sudden drop in hemoglobin following exposure to the putative drug. Initial serologic presentation is not fully appreciated, causing the disorder to be under-diagnosed [1,2]. Many drugs have been implicated in causing red cell destruction, with the most common being secondand third-generation cephalosporins, this was demonstrated in an extensive report by Arndt and Garratty where 74% of 126 cases were due to cephalosporins and by Johnson et al. where 51% of 73 cases were due to cephalosporins [3,2]. DIIHA is identified by clinical evidence of hemolysis associated with drug therapy and confirmed by serologic testing. Classically, positive reactivity of the direct antiglobulin test (DAT) is reported from strong (3–4+) positive due to IgG binding to weak positive due to complement binding only [4]. Testing of the serum and eluate for the presence of antibodies is known to produce negative results. The following will describe the new paradigm of presenting serologic results consistent with DIIHA.