A Prospective Comparison of Four Techniques for Measuring Platelet-associated IgG
Overview
Affiliations
We describe a prospective study comparing four different assays for PAIgG. Platelets from patients with a variety of thrombocytopenic disorders were collected into ACD, washed, and the PAIgG then measured using three assays for surface PAIgG. These included: (a) a direct binding assay using 125I-monoclonal anti-IgG (MoAb); (b) a direct binding assay using 125I-staphylococcal protein A (SPA); and (c) a two-stage assay. PAIgG also was measured using an assay for 'total' PAIgG following platelet lysis. The mean +/- SD number of molecules of IgG per platelet on washed platelets from 29 healthy, non-thrombocytopenic controls was: 86 +/- 80 (125I-MoAb); 94 +/- 96 (125I-SPA); 3520 +/- 1890 (two-stage surface assay); and 10,850 +/- 3720 (total PAIgG). A total of 62 different patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura or thrombocytopenia complicating systematic lupus erythematosus, and 73 different patients with 'non-immune' thrombocytopenia, were tested using each of the four assays. These 'non-immune' thrombocytopenic patients included patients with carcinoma, septicaemia, pre-eclampsia, chronic leukaemia, thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, haemolytic uraemic syndrome, acute leukaemia and myelodysplasia. All four assays gave similar results for both the immune and non-immune thrombocytopenic patients. The sensitivity of the assays for the most severely thrombocytopenic patients with immune thrombocytopenia was: MoAb 60%; SPA 88%; two-stage 82%; and 'total' PAIgG 88%. The specificity of the four assays in the non-immune thrombocytopenic patients was 57% 'total' PAIgG; 63% two-stage surface; 25% SPA; 38% MoAb.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Matsuura Y, Tomita T, Kondo M, Mukai M, Kataoka H Cureus. 2024; 16(6):e62804.
PMID: 39040719 PMC: 11260694. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.62804.
Reference guide for the diagnosis of adult primary immune thrombocytopenia, 2023 edition.
Kashiwagi H, Kuwana M, Murata M, Shimada N, Takafuta T, Yamanouchi J Int J Hematol. 2023; 119(1):1-13.
PMID: 37957517 PMC: 10770234. DOI: 10.1007/s12185-023-03672-1.
Anti-platelet antibody immunoassays in childhood immune thrombocytopenia: a systematic review.
Schmidt D, Lakerveld A, Heitink-Polle K, Bruin M, Vidarsson G, Porcelijn L Vox Sang. 2020; 115(4):323-333.
PMID: 32080872 PMC: 7317748. DOI: 10.1111/vox.12894.
Reference guide for management of adult immune thrombocytopenia in Japan: 2019 Revision.
Kashiwagi H, Kuwana M, Hato T, Takafuta T, Fujimura K, Kurata Y Int J Hematol. 2020; 111(3):329-351.
PMID: 31897887 PMC: 7223085. DOI: 10.1007/s12185-019-02790-z.
How do we diagnose immune thrombocytopenia in 2018?.
Kelton J, Vrbensky J, Arnold D Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2018; 2018(1):561-567.
PMID: 30504358 PMC: 6245958. DOI: 10.1182/asheducation-2018.1.561.