Background:Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) results from red cell destruction due to circulating autoantibodies against red cell membrane antigens. They are classified etiologically into primary and secondary AIHAs. A positive direct antiglobulin test (DAT) is the hallmark of diagnosis for AIHA.Methods and Results:One hundred and seventy-five AIHA cases diagnosed based on positive DAT were included in the study. The cases showed a female predilection (M: F = 1:2.2) and a peak incidence in the third decade. Forty cases were found to be due to primary AIHA, while a majority (n = 135) had AIHA secondary to other causes. The primary AIHA cases had severe anemia at presentation (65%) and more often showed a blood picture indicative of hemolysis (48%). Forty-five percent of primary AIHAs showed positivity for both DAT and indirect antiglobulin test (IAT). Connective tissue disorders were the most common associated etiology in secondary AIH A0 (n = 63).Conclusion:AIHAs have a female predilection and commonly present with symptoms of anemia. AIHA secondary to other diseases (especially connective tissue disorders) is more common. Primary AIHAs presented with severe anemia and laboratory evidence of marked hemolysis.

A positive direct Coombs test (DCT) is the hallmark of diagnosis of immune hemolytic anemias. The reagent used for the test is the Antihuman globulin (AHG), which may be either 'Polyspecific' or 'Monospecific'. The advent of the Gel card systems has made the procedure and interpretation of DCT simpler. Aim of this study is to evaluate three of the various techniques used for the performance and interpretation of DCT. A total of 96 EDTA samples were included in the study. DCT was performed by (i) polyspecific AHG manual tube method (ii) polyspecific AHG Gel card method and (iii) monospecific AHG (Anti IgG and Anti Complement) manual tube method. In our study we considered positivity by monospecific AHG as the standard for diagnosis. Of the total 96 samples evaluated, 44 cases positive by Gel card method, were also positive for either one or both the monospecific AHG reagents. 17 cases positive by Gel card were negative by all manual methods. These false positive cases were attributed to reasons such as increased ESR, macrocytosis and marked leucocytosis. Nine cases were negative by Gel card but were positive with the Monospecific AHG. The sensitivity of DCT done by the Gel card technique was 83.01% and the specificity was 60.46%. Use of Gel card technique to perform and interpret DCT is easier than manual tube methods, but positivity by Gel card needs to be correlated with clinical presentation of the patient and other laboratory findings. Monospecific antisera can be used to confirm cases that are positive by the Gel card systems.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract