Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 89964

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2021 | Month : August | Volume : 15 | Issue : 8 | Page : EC12 - EC15 Full Version

Serological Characterisation of Auto-antibodies in Patients with Direct Antiglobulin Test Positive Autoimmune Haemolytic Anaemia at a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital in Tirupati, India


Published: August 1, 2021 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2021/50542.15247
Chinthapeta Keerthi, Rajendran Arun, Bandi Suresh Babu, Kinnera Vijaya Sreedhar Babu, Alladi Mohan, Chodimella Chandrasekhar, Nandyala Rukmangadha, MM Suchitra

1. Junior Resident, Department of Transfusion Medicine, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Transfusion Medicine, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Transfusion Medicine, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India. 4. Professor and Head, Department of Transfusion Medicine, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India. 5. Professor and Head, Department of Medicine, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India. 6. Professor, Department of Haematology, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India. 7. Professor and Head, Department of Pathology, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India. 8. Professor and Head, Department of Biochemistry, Sri

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Rajendran Arun,
Associate Professor, Department of Transfusion Medicine, Sri Venkateswara
Institute of Medical Sciences (SVIMS), Alipiri Road, Tirupati-517507, Andhra Pradesh, India.
E-mail: arundr_83@yahoo.co.in

Abstract

Introduction: Haemolysis in Autoimmune Haemolytic Anaemia (AIHA) is a result of Immunoglobulin G (IgG) or Immunoglobulin M (IgM) auto-antibodies with or without complement components binding to the Red Blood Cell (RBC) surface and initiating its destruction. Serologic evidence is provided by autocontrol or Direct Antiglobulin Test (DAT). Diagnostic work-up is essential as the management depends on the antibody type. Characteristics of the bound antibody and the target antigen determine the degree of haemolysis. Serological characterisation in AIHA helps to differentiate into its various types which help the clinician to decide on the treatment to be given.

Aim: To serologically characterise the auto-antibodies in patients with DAT positive AIHA at a tertiary care teaching hospital.

Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out in the Department of Transfusion Medicine, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India, from March 2019 to February 2020. A 40 consecutive patient samples were included in the study. Characterisation of antibody was done using polyspecific Anti-Human Globulin (AHG) reagent followed by mono-specific AHG reagent by gel method. If antibody was of IgG type, then the subclass was determined by a mono specific anti-IgG1 and anti-IgG3 gel card. Association between antibody types, subtype, and strength of DAT with severity of haemolysis were compared using Chi-square/Fisher’s-exact test. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The total study population was 40 patients. The mean age of the study population was 45 years (range 13-78). Out of 40 patients, males were 30 (75%) and females were 10 (25%). The primary and secondary causes for AIHA include 4 (10%) and 36 (90%) respectively. Among 40 patients, 22 (55%) patients had IgG antibody alone, 17 (42.5%) patients had IgG antibody with combination of other antibodies and 1 (2.5%) had only complement (C3d). IgG1 was identified in 7 (18%) of patients, combination of IgG1 and IgG3 in 3 (7.7%). There was a significant association with IgG+combination (p-value=0.03), IgG1+IgG3 (p-value=0.029) and strength of reaction (p-value=0.003) with respect to severity of haemolysis.

Conclusion: Presence of multiple antibodies, presence of IgG1 and IgG3 and with complement combination and presence of higher grading of reaction in gel column were associated with severity of haemolysis. We recommend that serological characterisation of auto-antibody in AIHA would help the clinician in assessing the severity of haemolysis so that management can be done appropriately.

Keywords

Autoimmune diseases, Haemolysis, Immunoglobulin, Red blood cell

The AIHA is characterised by accelerated red cell destruction with shortened red cell survival due to auto-antibodies directed against patient’s own red cells (1). Symptoms of AIHA can vary from mild anaemia to life threatening complications secondary to severe anaemia. The incidence of AIHA in adults is one to three cases per 100,000 per year (2). The disease peak incidence is between sixth and seventh decade and the frequency is more in females when compared to males (3).

The criteria requires to diagnose AIHA are serologic evidence of an auto antibody and clinical or laboratory evidence of haemolysis. Haemolysis in AIHA is a result of Immunoglobulin G (IgG) or Immunoglobulin M (IgM) auto-antibodies with or without complement components binding to the RBC surface and initiating RBC destruction. Serologic evidence is provided by autocontrol or DAT (1).

A positive DAT does not conclusively distinguish auto-antibodies of clinical importance from those without. Characteristics of the bound antibody and the target antigen determine the degree of haemolysis. Serological characterisation in AIHA helps to differentiate auto-antibodies into its various types. It informs the clinician regarding the disease course and to decide on the treatment to be given.

Hence, with this background, as there were only limited studies available from our country (4), authors performed to serologically characterise the auto-antibodies in patients with DAT positive AIHA at a tertiary care teaching hospital and to characterise its subtype, DAT strength and their association with severity of haemolysis.

Material and Methods

This cross-sectional study was carried out at the Department of Transfusion Medicine, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India, from March 2019 to February 2020. The study was started after obtaining approval from Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC no 891- Roc AS/11/IEC/SVIMS/2017 dated 28.03 2019).

Inclusion criteria: All the patients who were positive for poly specific DAT and those who were willing to participate in the study by giving written informed consent were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients of alloimmune haemolytic anaemia like haemolytic disease of newborn, haemolytic transfusion reaction were excluded.

Review of our Departmental data during the last two years showed, on an average, 400 samples per year were submitted for DAT, of which, 10% of the samples were found to be positive. Hence, 40 consecutive patient samples were included in the study.

Study Procedure

The following laboratory investigations like complete haemogram, percentage of reticulocytes, total serum bilirubin, and serum Lactate Dehydogenase (LDH) was done. The laboratory parameters used to categorise severity of haemolysis are total serum bilirubin (>2 mg/dL), haemoglobin (<9 g/dL), percentage of reticulocyte (>2%), serum LDH (>500 IU/mL) (5),(6). Haemolysis was classified into severe if all the above parameters were fulfilled, or classified into moderate if any of the two or three above parameters were abnormal as per the criteria reported in a study by Das SS et al., (4). A score of 2 was given if any two of the above parameters were present and a score of 3 was given if three parameters were present.

Two millilitre of ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid blood sample from each patient was collected. Column agglutination technology by gel card method was used to serologically characterise the auto-antibodies. Characterisation of antibody was done using polyspecific Anti-Human Globulin (AHG) reagent containing Anti-IgG+C3d (BioRad, Switzerland) initially as per our Departmental standard operating procedure.

If sample showed positive DAT with polyspecific AHG, it was further tested as per the manufacturer’s instructions (ID-Card DC Screening I, BioRad, Switzerland) with mono specific AHG which contains antibody to IgG, IgM, IgA, and complement factors like C3c and C3d. Positive DAT reactions were graded as 1+, 2+, 3+ and 4+ as per the manufacturer’s instructions.

If antibody was of IgG type, then the subclass was determined by a mono specific anti-IgG1 and anti-IgG3 gel card (ID-Card DAT IgG1/IgG3, BioRad, Switzerland) as per the manufacturer’s instructions. This card consist of monoclonal anti-IgG1 in two different dilutions (1:1 and 1:100), anti-IgG3 in two different dilutions (1:1 and 1:100), anti- IgG (rabbit) in 1:10 dilutions and a negative control.

Statistical Analysis

Data was entered in Microsoft Office Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA). All continuous data was expressed as mean, standard deviation and median (Inter quartile range) and were compared using unpaired student t-test/Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate. Categorical variables were expressed as percentages and were compared using chi-square/Fisher’s-exact test as appropriate. Association between antibody types, subtype, and strength of DAT with severity of haemolysis were compared using chi-square/Fisher’s-exact test as appropriate. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done for parameters showing statistical significance. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The data was analysed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL).

Results

The total study population was 40 patients. The mean age of the study population was 45 years (range 13-78). Out of 40 patients, males were 30 (75%) and females were 10 (25%). The primary and secondary causes for AIHA include 4 (10%) and 36 (90%) respectively. Autoimmune diseases like Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis (38.9%) were the most common cause of secondary AIHA. Other causes include lymphoproliferative disorder, malignancy and infections. There was no significant association between the causes of AIHA (primary and secondary) and severity of haemolysis (p-value=0.54) by Chi-square test.

None of the subject fit into severe haemolysis criteria and all the 40 study population fit into moderate criteria with different scores i.e., score 2 (with any of the two laboratory parameters) and score 3 (with any of the three parameters). Eighteen (45%) subjects were found to had moderate haemolysis with score 3 and 22 (55%) with score 2. Analysis of data was done between score 2 and score 3 as there was no patients with severe haemolysis criteria.

The mean value of haemoglobin was 6.77g/dL (SD 2.39), median value of serum LDH was 511IU/dL (IQR-250,552) and that of serum bilirubin was 2.05 mg/dL (IQR-0.7,2.7) and that of reticulocyte was 1.75% (IQR-0.6,2.5). There was a statistically significant difference in median values of serum bilirubin (p-value=0.026), percentage of reticulocyte count (p-value=0.001) with score 2 and 3 by Mann-Whitney U test. Whereas, there was no significant difference between mean values of haemoglobin (p-value=0.22), median values of LDH (p=0.714) with score 2 and 3 by independent t-test and Mann-Whitney U test respectively.

Among 40 patients, 22 (55%) patients had IgG antibody alone, 17 (42.5%) patients had IgG antibody with combination of other antibodies and 1 (2.5%) patient had only C3d (Table/Fig 1). Among 39 IgG patients, IgG1 was identified in 18% of patients, combination of IgG1 and IgG3 in 7.7% and 74.3% had neither IgG1nor IgG3. Among 22 IgG alone patients, 2 had IgG1 antibody component, 1 had IgG1+IgG3 and 19 had neither IgG1 nor IgG3 subtype. Among 17 IgG plus other antibody combination like IgM, C3d etc., 5 had IgG1subtype, 2 had IgG1+IgG3 subtype and 10 had neither IgG1 nor IgG3 subtype.

Moderate haemolysis with score 2 was seen in 13 patients with IgG antibody alone and in 9 patients with IgG and combination of other antibodies. In patients with moderate haemolysis with score 3, 9 patients had IgG antibody alone and 9 patients had IgG with combination of other antibodies (Table/Fig 2). There is a significant association between presence of combination of antibodies (IgG+ combination) and severity of haemolysis when compared to IgG alone (p-value=0.043).

Out of 7 IgG1 alone patients, 4 had score 2 and 3 patients had score 3. IgG1+IgG3 constitute a total of 3 patients out of which 1 had score 2 and 2 had score 3. Neither IgG1 nor IgG3 constitutes a total of 30 patients out of which 16 had score 2 and 13 had score 3 (Table/Fig 3). There was a significant association between IgG1 and/or IgG3 and severity of haemolysis when compared with other combinations (p-value=0.017) but there was no significant association when there was absence of IgG1 and IgG3 (p-value=0.433).

IgG1 and/or IgG3 without complement was seen in 3 patients with score 2 and none with score 3. IgG1 and/or IgG3 with complement was seen in 2 patients with score 2 and 5 with score 3. Neither IgG1 nor IgG3 without complement was seen in 10 patients with score 2 and 9 with score 3. Neither IgG1 nor IgG3 with complement was seen in 6 patients with score 2 and 4 with score 3 (Table/Fig 4). There was a significant association between severity of haemolysis and IgG1 and/or IgG3 with complement combination (p-value=0.019) and there is no significant association between severity of haemolysis when there was absence of IgG1 and/or IgG3 with or without complement (p-value=0.750).

The strength of the DAT 4+ was seen in 15 patients with score 2 and 10 with score 3. The strength of the DAT 3+ was seen in 4 patients with score 2 and 2 with score 3. The strength of the DAT 2+ was seen in 2 patients with score 2 and 4 with score 3. The strength of the DAT 1+ was seen in 1 patients with score 2 and 2 with score 3. Patients with 4+ reactions are found to had significant association with severity of haemolysis when compared to lesser grade of reaction (p=0.007).

The antibody subtype among IgG1 in 1:1 titre was seen in 3 patients in score 2 and 3 in score 3. The antibody subtype among IgG1 in 1:100 titre was seen in 1 patients in score 2 and none in score 3. The antibody subtype among combination of IgG1 in 1:1 and IgG3 1:1 titre was seen in 1 patients in score 2 and none in score 3. The antibody subtype among IgG1 in 1:100 titre and IgG3 in 1:100 was seen in none patients in score 2 and 2 patients in score 3. There was no significant association between severity of haemolysis and IgG1titres (p-value=0.367) and with IgG3 combination titres (p-value=0.489).

Regression analysis for those variables which had a p-value of <0.05 was done and it showed a significant association with IgG+combination (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.43-4.89, p-value=0.03), IgG1+IgG3 (OR 1.78, 95% CI 2.68-8.54 p-value=0.029) and 4+ strength of reaction (OR7.95, 95% CI 2.45-12.01, p-value=0.003) with respect to severity of haemolysis.

Discussion

The serologic characterisation helps to determine whether the haemolysis has an immune basis and if so, what type of immune haemolytic anaemia is present. This is important because the treatment for each type is different. Hence, it is important to serologically characterise auto-antibodies in AIHA to effectively predict the prognosis and disease outcome.

In our study population, the male to female ratio was 3:1 with the mean age group of 45 years (range 13-78). More number of cases was seen in the fourth decade which was similar to another study where they had reported high incidence of AIHA above 40 years age (7). One Indian study reported that the median age of their study population was 37 years with male to female ratio of 5:8 (8). The high male to female ratio in our study might be because of our small study population. Another reason could be, in country like India, females hesitate to come to hospitals and usually take their own home remedies due to financial and social constraints making male preponderance in our study.

In our study, 4 (10%) patients were diagnosed to have primary AIHA and 36 (90%) patients had secondary AIHA. Though secondary AIHA is comparatively more which is similar to other studies, the incidence of secondary AIHA is very high when compared to other studies. A study from Lucknow reported 38.5% and 61.5% of primary and secondary AIHA respectively (4) whereas another study reported 55% and 45% respectively (9). The higher incidence of secondary AIHA in our study might be due to complications of underlying disorder making the patient to attend the hospital. The most common secondary cause of AIHA in our study was autoimmune diseases (38.8%) which are similar to various other studies (4),(10). Some studies observed lympho-proliferative disorders as the leading causes (11),(12).

Haemolysis was classified into severe and moderate as per the criteria laid down in one study (4). But, in our study no severe haemolysis was noted and all 40 study population had moderate haemolysis. Of the total 40 patients, 22 (55%) patients were categorised to had moderate haemolysis with score 2 and 18 (45%) with score 3. There was no significant association between cause of AIHA and severity of haemolysis (p-value=0.54) which might be due to lesser sample size in one of the arm.

In our study, there was a statistically significant difference in median values of serum bilirubin (p-value=0.026), percentage of reticulocyte count (p-value=0.001) with score 2 and 3 whereas there was no significant difference between mean values of haemoglobin (p-value=0.22), median values of LDH (p-value=0.714) with score 2 and 3. However, one study observed a significant association between the above said laboratory parameters and the severity of in vivo haemolysis (6). Another study reported no correlation between the haemoglobin level and severity of haemolysis (10).

Majority of our patients were positive for IgG auto-antibody either alone or in combination. Out of 40 patients, 39 (97.5%) were found to be positive for IgG and only one patient (2.5%) was positive for C3d alone. Out of 39, 22 (56.4%) patients were positive for IgG auto-antibody alone whereas 17 (43.6%) patients were found to be positive for IgG along with other auto-antibodies. This is similar to the finding noted in one Indian study, where 68.5% of their patients had solitary IgG (4). In another study, almost all the patients had IgG auto-antibodies (3). We found a significant association between presence of multiple antibodies and severity of haemolysis when compared to IgG alone (p-value=0.04).

The IgG1 was identified in 18% of patients, as compared to 7.7% of patients, who were identified to had combination of IgG1 and IgG3 and rest 74.3% had neither IgG1 nor IgG3. This is in contrast to one study where IgG1 was detected in 53.8%, IgG1 and IgG3 combination in 34.6% and IgG3 alone in 7.7% (13). Two different studies reported neither IgG1 nor IgG3 in 51.2% and 3.8%, respectively (4),(13). There was a significant association between IgG1 and/or IgG3 and severity of haemolysis (p-value=0.017) but there was no significant association when there was absence of IgG1 and IgG3. It revealed that patients who had IgG1 and IgG3 were 1.65 times (95% CI-1.37, 5.68) more likely to present with severity in haemolysis as compared to patients without IgG1 or IgG3. The present study findings were concordant to one study, where the patients had severe haemolysis when their red cells were coated with IgG1 and/or IgG3 (14). We did not find significant association between severity of haemolysis and IgG titres (p-value=0.367) which might be due to lesser sample size.

Complement was found in 45% of our study population (43.5% in combination with other antibodies and 2.5% as alone). One study documented that 72% of patients had complement (15). In our study, there was a significant association between severity of haemolysis and IgG1 and/or IgG3 with complement combination (p-value=0.019) and there was no significant association when there was absence of IgG1 and/or IgG3 with or without complement (p-value=0.750).

The present study revealed that patients who had 4+ reaction were 7.32 times (95% CI 2.35, 12.65) more likely to present with severity in haemolysis when compared to patients with lesser grading of reaction. Gopal KR et al., showed a strong correlation between the strength of DAT and severe haemolysis (16). A similar study by Das SS et al., reported that greater strength of DAT was associated with increased severity of haemolysis (4). However, a study done from New Delhi did not find any correlation between them (17).

Limitation(s)

Limitations of the present study include lesser sample size as the number of patients registered during the study period was less. Absorption studies were not done to assess the presence of alloantibody in addition to auto-antibody which would have influenced on the severity of haemolysis.

Conclusion

Hence, authors concluded that this AIHA study population had predominantly IgG antibody followed by IgG and complement combination and occasional cases of complement alone and IgM and IgA. IgG1 was the most common subtype with majority having a titre of 1:1. We found that presence of multiple antibodies, presence of IgG1 and IgG3 and with complement combination and presence of higher grading of reaction in gel column, laboratory evidence of increased serum bilirubin and reticulocyte count were associated with severity of haemolysis.

It is recommended that serological characterisation of auto-antibody in AIHA would help the clinician in assessing the severity of haemolysis so that management can be done appropriately. However, further studies with more sample size are required to assess the significance of various other factors.

Acknowledgement

Authors acknowledge Sri Balaji Arogya Vara Prasadhini scheme of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams for their financial support.

References

1.
Gehrs BC, Friedberg RC. Autoimmune hemolytic anemia. Am J Hematol. 2002;69:258-71. [crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Hill QA, Stamps R, Massey E, Grainger JD, Provan D, Hill A. Guidelines on the management of drug-induced immune and secondary autoimmune, hemolytic anemia. Br J Haematol. 2017;177:208-20. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Issit P. Serological diagnosis and characterisation of causative antibody. In: Chaplin H Jr, editor. Methods in Hematology - Immune Hemolytic Anemia. USA: Churchill Livingston; 1985. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Das SS, Nityanand S, Chaudhary R. Clinical and serological characterisation of autoimmune hemolytic anemia in a tertiary care hospital in North India. Ann Hematol. 2009;88:727-32. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Garratty G. Autoimmune hemolytic anemia. In: Garratty G (ed) Immunobiology of transfusion medicine. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1994. Pp. 493-522. [crossref]
6.
Ravetch J, Kinet JP. Fc-receptors. Annu Rev Immunol. 1991;9:457-92. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Duffy TP. Autoimmune hemolytic anemia and paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. In: Simon TL, Dzik WH, Synder EL, Stowell CP, Strauss RG (eds). Rossi’s principles of transfusion medicine. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2002. Pp. 345-66.
8.
Sudipta SD, Ritam C, Zaman RU. Immunohematological and clinical charecterizations of mixed autoimmune hemolytic anemia. Asian J Transfus Sci. 2018;12:99-104. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Sokol RJ, Booker DJ, Stamps R. The pathology of autoimmune hemolytic anemia. J Clin Pathol. 1992;45:1047-52. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Naithani R, Agrawal N, Mahapatra M, Pati H, Kumar R, Choudhary VP. Autoimmune hemolytic anemia in India: Clinico-hematological spectrum of 79 cases. Hematology. 2006;11:73-76. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Sokol RJ, Hewitt S, Stamps BK. Autoimmune hemolysis: An 18 year study of 865 cases referred to a regional transfusion centre. Br Med J. 1981;282:2023-27. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Petz LD, Garratty G. Acquired Immune Hemolytic Anemias. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1980.
13.
Lai M, Leone G, Landolf R. Autoimmune hemolytic anemia with gel-based immunohematology tests. Am J Clin Pathol. 2013;139:457-63. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Das SS, Chaudhary RK. Application of gel technology in the serologic characterisation of autoantibody in DAT-positive autoimmune diseases. Immunohematol Am Red Cross. 2007;23:59-62. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Wheeler CA, Calhoun L, Blackall DP. Warm reactive autoantibodies: clinical and serologic correlations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;122:680-85. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Gopal KR, Smita M, Debasish M, Pankaj P, Rabindra KJ, Rashmita P. Immunohematological workup severity analysis and transfusion support in autoimmune hemolytic anemia. ISBT Sci Series. 2021;16:31-36. [crossref]
17.
Choudhry VP, Passi GR, Pati HP. Clinico- hematological spectrum of auto-immune hemolytic anemia: An Indian experience. J Assoc Physcians India. 1996;44:112-14.

DOI and Others

10.7860/JCDR/2021/50542.15247

Date of Submission: May 31, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Jul 08, 2021
Date of Acceptance: Jul 17, 2021
Date of Publishing: Aug 01, 2021

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jun 05, 2021
• Manual Googling: Jul 16, 2021
• iThenticate Software: Jul 31, 2021 (18%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com