Ortho performed retain testing, batch review, complaint review by lot, donor history, and donor complaint review.Based upon the results of this investigation, the reported customer issue was unable to be confirmed.All results were satisfactory.Sample was not returned to ortho for further investigation.(b)(4).
|
Event 1 of 4 (patient 1 tested with vision).Customer contacted tsc to report two patients with history of anti-e failed to react with cell# 3 from 0.8% resolve panel a lot# vra290 exp:jan 2, 2018; patients tested with mts anti-igg gel cards on vision and manual gel.Customer reports patients in question, antibody screen initially tested 1+ positive with cell# 2 from 0.8% selectogen on vision with same lot of mts igg gel cards.Customer reports routine qc performed on 0.8% resolve panel a in question not affected.Customer reports no patient harm caused due to this event occuring.Issue started on:(b)(6) 2017, frequency: 2 patients both manual and on vision.Microtubes/wells or cell (donor #) affected: cell#3, methodology used: vision, reaction grade obtained: neg, customer was expecting: pos.Test repeated:yes, result obtained by repeating:neg, method used to repeat:manual gel.Customer reports no signs of hemolysis in red cell reagents.Customer reports storing and testing mts gel cards and reagents according to ifu.Customer reports performing antibody identification with 0.8% resolve panel b and all homozygous b cells reacted 1+ pos with patients in question.Customer reports if they did not have 0.8% resolve panel b, they would have failed to identify anti-e in patients in question.Detail any maintenance failure or maintenance inadequately performed that would be relevant for the issue : up to date.Tsc discussed with customer to phenotype e antigen on cell#3 from 0.8% resolve panel a lot# vra290 in question.Customer agreed and reports 4+ positive reaction for e antigen in tube method (lot numbers requested and not provided).Tsc discussed with customer that patients in question may have been expressing anti-e at sub-detectable levels.Tsc referred and discussed ifu with customer: for antibody detection and identification, different serological methods are optimal for different antibodies and that no single antibody screening or identification method optimally detects all antibodies.In some low ionic strength test systems, certain anti-e and anti-k antibodies have been reported to be nonreactive.Customer content with discussion and requests replacements for the one set of 0.8% resolve panel a.Tsc will process replacement and email customer certificate of destruction, customer agreed.Customer content with documentation of event and replacement and agreed to call back if further assistance needed.
|