ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2024
Falsely abnormal serum protein electrophoresis after administration of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG): A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy, used in several neurologic, hematologic, immunologic and dermatologic conditions, is known to interfere with the results of some serum laboratory tests. We analyzed the potential interference of IVIG on serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) by reviewing more than a decade of SPEP studies performed by the clinical immunology laboratory of the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Of the total 100,350 SPEP performed between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2023, 395 contained the keyword IVIG in the pathologist report, contributed by 348 patients confirmed to have received IVIG by chart review. Of the 348 patients, 20 (6 %) had a M-spike on SPEP suggestive of monoclonal gammopathy, while 328 (94 %) did not have it. Of the 20 patients, 14 received IVIG within 30 days from the SPEP collection date, while 6 received beyond 30 days. Serum immunofixation electrophoresis (SIFE) and clinical follow up showed no evidence of monoclonal gammopathy in 5 of the 14 patients. Overall, this 11-year retrospective cohort study showed that 5 of 348 (1.4 %) patients treated with IVIG and tested by SPEP had a false M-spike, that is a spike not confirmed to be caused by a monoclonal gammopathy by subsequent studies. Although small, the false positive rate of 1.4 % suggests that integrating knowledge of recent IVIG administration into the pathologist report would reduce SPEP misdiagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.