IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0196382.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting anti-RhD titers in donors: Boostering response and decline rates are personal

Author

Listed:
  • Anneke S de Vos
  • Ellen C E van der Schoot
  • Dimitris Rizopoulos
  • Mart P Janssen

Abstract

Background: Anti-RhD immunised donors provide anti-RhD immunoglobulins used for the prevention of rhesus disease. These donors are periodically hyper-immunised (boostered) to retain a high titer level of anti-RhD. Study design and methods: We analysed anti-RhD donor records from 1998 to 2016, consisting of 30,116 anti-RhD titers from 755 donors, encompassing 3,372 booster events. Various models were fit to these data to allow describing the anti-RhD titers over time. Results: A random effects model with a log-linear anti-RhD titer decline over time and a saturating titer response to boostering is shown to fit the data well. This model contains two general model parameters, relating timing and maximum of the booster effect, as well as two parameters characterizing the individual donor, namely how fast the booster effect saturates with current titer and the anti-RhD decline rate. The average individual log2 decline is 0.55 per year, i.e. a 32% decline in absolute titer, with half of the donors declining between 13% and 41% per year. Their anti-RhD titer peaks around 26 days following a booster event. Boostering response reduces with higher titers at boostering; at median titer (log2 11) the mean increase per booster is log2 0.38, that is from an absolute titer of 2048 to 2665 (+30%), with half of all donors increasing between 16% and 65% in their titer. Conclusion: The model describes anti-RhD titer change per individual with only four parameters, two of which are donor specific. This information can be used to enhance the blood bank’s immunisation programme, by deriving individualized immunization policies in which boostering is adjusted to the anticipated anti-RhD decline, effectiveness of boostering and titer levels required.

Suggested Citation

  • Anneke S de Vos & Ellen C E van der Schoot & Dimitris Rizopoulos & Mart P Janssen, 2018. "Predicting anti-RhD titers in donors: Boostering response and decline rates are personal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0196382
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196382
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196382
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196382&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0196382?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0196382. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.