RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Enumeration of hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) is vital to decide the time to initiate harvest (TTIH) and adequacy of harvest dose (AOHD). Standard of care used for HPC enumeration is flowcytometric CD34+ enumeration, but it is expensive, time-consuming and requires skilled staff to perform the test. Alternatively, HPC-count by advanced automated cell analyzer is cheaper, quicker, and easy-to-perform test. Our objective was to find a correlation of HPC count with CD34+ enumeration in leukapheresis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational, prospective study was conducted in the year 2018-2019. A total of 126 samples were included in the study, the peripheral blood (PB) group comprised of 42samples and apheresis group of 84 samples. The samples were simultaneously tested for CD34+ expression and complete blood count which included the HPC count, white blood cells (WBC) count and multinational corporation (MNC) count and correlation analysis was performed with CD34+ flowcytometric count. The cut-off of PB HPC count for the target dose of 5 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg was established using Receiver Operator Curve. RESULTS: The correlation coefficient (r) of HPC with CD34+ count was 0.617 and 0.699 for PB group and apheresis group sample respectively, which was statistically significant. The correlation with MNC and WBC count was not very significant. A cut-off value of PB HPC was established to be 66 HPC/µl with a positive predictive value of 94.12%. The cost of CD34 + flow cytometric enumeration was six times that of HPC enumeration by analyzer. CONCLUSION: The HPC count is a cheaper, rapid and easy test and can be clinically applied to predict TTIH and AOHD but requires more studies to validate its efficacy in clinical use.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, laboratory results are of great importance for the diagnosis and treatment. Reference intervals of different parameters aid health-care professionals in the interpretation of results. There are very few studies on reference intervals from India. This prospective study was conducted to determine the reference intervals for platelet count (PLT) and PLT indices; mean PLT volume (MPV), PLT distribution width (PDW), and PLT large cell ratio (P-LCR). These values can be obtained as a part of a routine complete blood count (CBC) and have diagnostic and prognostic significance in certain diseases. PLT count is an important criterion for the selection of donors for repeat plateletpheresis donation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen hundred and thirty-four first-time healthy volunteer plateletpheresis donors were enrolled for the study. CBC was done, values of PLT, MPV, PDW, and P-LCR were noted, and the results were analyzed. The 95% of the reference distribution was estimated using the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles following Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Adverse donor reactions, if any and quality parameters of single donor PLTs (SDP) were also studied. RESULTS: Reference range values of PLT, MPV, PDW, and P-LCR were 137,825-355,175/µl, 8.1-13.9/fl, 9.1-22.5/fl, and 11.7%-52.9%, respectively, and compared well with other published studies from India. It was observed that reference values of PLT count obtained in the study were lower than reference values that are currently used in most laboratories (150,000-450,000/µl) in India. CONCLUSION: Based on our results, we are of the opinion that the PLT count cutoffs for repeat plateletpheresis donation may need to be revised downwards for our country which would also mitigate the scarcity of apheresis donors.
RESUMEN
Safe blood transfusion being the cornerstone of any Blood Transfusion Services requires meticulous testing for Transfusion Transmitted Disease (TTD) markers in donated blood. We performed head-to-head comparison of ELISA and ECLIA for detection of TTD markers for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) and Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) in 10,164 Indian blood donors. All concordant reactive, discordant reactive and concordant non-reactive samples were re-confirmed using Individual Donor-Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (ID-NAT) as the 'gold standard' test. 223 samples were found reactive; out of which 93 (four HIV, 34 HCV and 55 HBV) samples were concordant reactive and tested positive by both methods while 130 discordant reactive samples were reactive either by ELISA or ECLIA. Out of 130 discordant reactive samples ELISA-reactive and ECLIA-non-reactive samples for HIV, HCV and HBV were 15, eight, and 29 respectively while ECLIA-reactive ELISA-non-reactive samples for HIV, HCV and HBV were 39, 36 and three respectively. Sensitivity of ECLIA and ELISA was 100 % for all three TTD markers, while specificity was 99.62 % and 99.85 % for HIV; 99.64 % and 99.84 % for HCV and 99.97 % and 99.70 % for HBV respectively. Strength of agreement and Kappa Statistics for ECLIA and ELISA compared to the gold standard test was poor and fair for HIV (kâ¯=â¯0.169 and 0.347), moderate and good for HCV (kâ¯=â¯0.539 and 0.763), and very good and good for HBV (kâ¯=â¯0.973 and 0.783). According to this study, it can be concluded both the testing techniques; ELISA and ECLIA have 100 % sensitivity for the detection for HBV, HCV and HIV in blood donors and therefore, either can be used for TTD screening in blood banks in India.
