与Bio-Rad, Grifols和QuidelOrtho相比,Immulab试剂红细胞敏感性的新见解。

IF 1.7 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Jessica Guglielmino, Fiona J Morris, Claire M Grattidge, Denise E Jackson
{"title":"与Bio-Rad, Grifols和QuidelOrtho相比,Immulab试剂红细胞敏感性的新见解。","authors":"Jessica Guglielmino, Fiona J Morris, Claire M Grattidge, Denise E Jackson","doi":"10.1186/s13104-025-07468-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Antibody screening and identification facilitates the issue of antigen-negative blood for patients with alloantibodies to red blood cell (RBC) antigens, thereby maximizing blood safety and the survival of transfused donor cells. The sensitivity and specificity of reagent red blood cells (RRBCs) used in pre-transfusion testing varies between manufacturers. This Phase II study aimed to build on a previously published Phase I study comparing the analytical performance of four manufacturers' RRBCs in column agglutination technology (CAT). A total of 231 patient samples with a negative indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) results were tested using Immulab, Bio-Rad, Grifols, and QuidelOrtho RRBCs. Phase II results were pooled with Phase I results to provide more accurate calculations of the RRBC analytical performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity of the RRBCs used in the combined studies was 94.52% (95%CI 86.56-98.49%) for Bio-Rad, 81.48% (95%CI 71.30-89.25%) for Grifols, and 95.71% (95%CI 87.98-99.11%) for QuidelOrtho RRBCs. The sensitivity of Immulab RRBCs were stratified based on performance in the three CAT platforms: 100%, 95%CI 95.07-100.00% in Bio-Rad CAT, 100%, 95%CI 95.55-100.00% in Grifols CAT and 100%, 95%CI 94.87-100.00% in QuidelOrtho CAT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Immulab 0.8% RRBCs showed greater sensitivities and NPVs than the equivalent Bio-Rad, Grifols, and QuidelOrtho RRBCs in Bio-Rad, Grifols, and QuidelOrtho CAT, respectively. These differences may have implications in clinical pre-transfusion settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":9234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Research Notes","volume":"18 1","pages":"411"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12486663/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New insights into the sensitivity of Immulab reagent red blood cells compared to Bio-Rad, Grifols and QuidelOrtho.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica Guglielmino, Fiona J Morris, Claire M Grattidge, Denise E Jackson\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13104-025-07468-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Antibody screening and identification facilitates the issue of antigen-negative blood for patients with alloantibodies to red blood cell (RBC) antigens, thereby maximizing blood safety and the survival of transfused donor cells. The sensitivity and specificity of reagent red blood cells (RRBCs) used in pre-transfusion testing varies between manufacturers. This Phase II study aimed to build on a previously published Phase I study comparing the analytical performance of four manufacturers' RRBCs in column agglutination technology (CAT). A total of 231 patient samples with a negative indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) results were tested using Immulab, Bio-Rad, Grifols, and QuidelOrtho RRBCs. Phase II results were pooled with Phase I results to provide more accurate calculations of the RRBC analytical performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity of the RRBCs used in the combined studies was 94.52% (95%CI 86.56-98.49%) for Bio-Rad, 81.48% (95%CI 71.30-89.25%) for Grifols, and 95.71% (95%CI 87.98-99.11%) for QuidelOrtho RRBCs. The sensitivity of Immulab RRBCs were stratified based on performance in the three CAT platforms: 100%, 95%CI 95.07-100.00% in Bio-Rad CAT, 100%, 95%CI 95.55-100.00% in Grifols CAT and 100%, 95%CI 94.87-100.00% in QuidelOrtho CAT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Immulab 0.8% RRBCs showed greater sensitivities and NPVs than the equivalent Bio-Rad, Grifols, and QuidelOrtho RRBCs in Bio-Rad, Grifols, and QuidelOrtho CAT, respectively. These differences may have implications in clinical pre-transfusion settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Research Notes\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"411\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12486663/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Research Notes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-025-07468-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Research Notes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-025-07468-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:抗体的筛选和鉴定有助于红细胞抗原同种异体抗体患者的抗原阴性血的发放,从而最大限度地提高血液的安全性和输入供体细胞的存活率。输血前检测中使用的试剂红细胞(rrbc)的敏感性和特异性因生产厂家而异。这项II期研究旨在建立在先前发表的I期研究的基础上,比较了四家制造商的rrbc在柱凝集技术(CAT)中的分析性能。使用Immulab、Bio-Rad、Grifols和QuidelOrtho rrbc对间接抗球蛋白试验(IAT)结果阴性的231例患者样本进行检测。II期结果与I期结果合并,以提供更准确的RRBC分析性能计算。结果:联合研究中使用的rrbc对Bio-Rad的敏感性为94.52% (95%CI 86.56 ~ 98.49%),对Grifols的敏感性为81.48% (95%CI 71.30 ~ 89.25%),对QuidelOrtho的敏感性为95.71% (95%CI 87.98 ~ 99.11%)。根据三种CAT平台的表现对Immulab rrbc的敏感性进行分层:Bio-Rad CAT为100%,95%CI 95.07-100.00%, Grifols CAT为100%,95%CI 95.55-100.00%, QuidelOrtho CAT为100%,95%CI 94.87-100.00%。结论:在Bio-Rad、Grifols和QuidelOrtho的CAT检测中,0.8%的对照rrbc的敏感性和npv值分别高于Bio-Rad、Grifols和QuidelOrtho对照rrbc。这些差异可能会影响临床输血前的设置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
New insights into the sensitivity of Immulab reagent red blood cells compared to Bio-Rad, Grifols and QuidelOrtho.

Objective: Antibody screening and identification facilitates the issue of antigen-negative blood for patients with alloantibodies to red blood cell (RBC) antigens, thereby maximizing blood safety and the survival of transfused donor cells. The sensitivity and specificity of reagent red blood cells (RRBCs) used in pre-transfusion testing varies between manufacturers. This Phase II study aimed to build on a previously published Phase I study comparing the analytical performance of four manufacturers' RRBCs in column agglutination technology (CAT). A total of 231 patient samples with a negative indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) results were tested using Immulab, Bio-Rad, Grifols, and QuidelOrtho RRBCs. Phase II results were pooled with Phase I results to provide more accurate calculations of the RRBC analytical performance.

Results: The sensitivity of the RRBCs used in the combined studies was 94.52% (95%CI 86.56-98.49%) for Bio-Rad, 81.48% (95%CI 71.30-89.25%) for Grifols, and 95.71% (95%CI 87.98-99.11%) for QuidelOrtho RRBCs. The sensitivity of Immulab RRBCs were stratified based on performance in the three CAT platforms: 100%, 95%CI 95.07-100.00% in Bio-Rad CAT, 100%, 95%CI 95.55-100.00% in Grifols CAT and 100%, 95%CI 94.87-100.00% in QuidelOrtho CAT.

Conclusions: Immulab 0.8% RRBCs showed greater sensitivities and NPVs than the equivalent Bio-Rad, Grifols, and QuidelOrtho RRBCs in Bio-Rad, Grifols, and QuidelOrtho CAT, respectively. These differences may have implications in clinical pre-transfusion settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Research Notes
BMC Research Notes Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all)
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
363
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Research Notes publishes scientifically valid research outputs that cannot be considered as full research or methodology articles. We support the research community across all scientific and clinical disciplines by providing an open access forum for sharing data and useful information; this includes, but is not limited to, updates to previous work, additions to established methods, short publications, null results, research proposals and data management plans.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信