|
The customer reported unexpected positive reactions of patient samples with biotestcell a1&b in the reverse typing.The customer stated that she a patient sample with an anti-m caused interferences with biotestcell a1&b.Furthermore, the customer stated that the reverse typing reagent red blood cells of ortho would be m antigen negative.The dustomer did not provide a date of event.The customer did neither return a product sample of biotestcell a1&b, lot 9402011-00 for investigational testing nor the patient sample that showed interferences.Therefore, our quality control laboratory tested their retention samples of the current lots of biotestcell a1&b: lot 9402011-00 (lot the customer filed her complaint for), lot 9406011-00 and lot 9410011-00 with different donor samples according to the instruction for use (ifu).All acceptance criteria were met.We did not observe any false positive reaction.Within the production process biotestcell a1&b was tested for the abo bloodgroups, the rh phenotypes and the antigens kell (kel1) and cellano (kel2) according to the requirements.The acceptance criteria were met.Testing for further antigens was not mandatory.Based on the investigation the complaint was classified as undetermined.Neither the complaint sample nor the patient samples that had caused the interferences were available and the retention sample reacted as expected.For abo products there are no specifications for the testing of antigens beyond abo, rh (rh phenotype), k (kel1), k (kel2).The testing for further antigens is not mandatory.Due to the test method for the reverse typing, it would be possible that antibodies that have a reaction optimum below 37 degrees c show a positive result in the reverse typing, depending on the antigens of the reagent red blood cells used and the specificity of the antibody.We therefore referred the customer to the section "limitations" of the instruction for use: false positive reactions might occur due to: cold antibodies.Auto antibodies.Panagglutinins.Patient's medication (e.G.Antibiotics, plasma expanders of high molecular weight).A review of the batch record documentation showed no irregularities which might have negatively affected the quality of the allegedly defective lot.Initially, this complaint was considered not to meet the criteria for vigilance reporting to fda.The complaint was re-classified as being "reportable" on may 05, 2024 and the timeline of 30 days for submitting an mdr report to fda has been exceeded.An internal quality notification has been opened to document this delay.((b)(4)).
|