Search

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 (k = 0.169 and 0.347), moderate and good for HCV (k = 0.539 and 0.763), and very good and good for HBV (k = 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.

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 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 group comprised of 42 samples and apheresis group of 84 samples. The samples were simultaneously tested for CD34+ expression and complete blood count (CBC) which included the HPC count, WBC count, MNC count and IG (Immature Granulocyte) index and correlation analysis was performed with CD34 + flowcytometric count. The cut-off of peripheral blood 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 peripheral blood and apheresis sample respectively, which was statistically significant. The correlation with MNC, IG 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. Funding Statement: None. Declaration of Interests: None. Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by Institutional Review Board. (MICR-849/2018).

Background: As a part of continuous quality initiatives, while moving from triple bags to quadruple bags, we undertook a study to compare platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and buffy-coat (BC) methods with respect to all blood components (red blood cells [RBCs], random donor platelet concentrate [RDPC], and fresh frozen plasma [FFP]) prepared by PRP and BC methods. Materials and Methods: It was a prospective analysis of different physical and quality parameters of RDPC, RBC, and FFP prepared out of 100 whole blood (WB) donations. Of these, 50 WB units were processed by PRP method using Triple bags and 50 WB units by BC method, using quadruple (top and bottom) bags, with an attached integral filter. Results: RBC prepared by BC method had higher hematocrit (61.3 ± 1.91% vs. 56.03 ± 3.37%; P < 0.05) and lower white blood cell (WBC) contamination (6.3 × 104 ± 6.1 vs. 5.41 × 105 ± 2.5; P < 0.05) in comparison to prepared by PRP method. Higher PLT yield (7.67 × 1010 ± 1.8 vs. 6.47 × 1010 ± 1.5; P < 0.05) and lower WBC count (8.24 × 103 ± 1.1 vs. 1.5 × 104 ± 2.1; P < 0.05) was observed in RDPC prepared by BC method than PRP derived. CD62P expression was lower in RDPC prepared by BC method (31.46 ± 9.7%; P < 0.05) as compared to PRP method (43.35 ± 12.5%; P < 0.05). The BC method also resulted in increased plasma yield (210.56 ± 18.54 ml vs. 187.92 ± 12.93 ml; P < 0.05) in FFP in comparison to PRP method. Conclusion: The blood components produced from WB by the BC method have laboratory variables suggestive of superior quality than those produced by the PRP method.