Anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibody interference with blood compatibility testing: Differentiating isatuximab and daratumumab via functional epitope mapping. Issue 11 (14th October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chami, Btissam; Okuda, Makoto; Moayeri, Morvarid; Pirenne, France; Hidaka, Yoko; Nambiar, Ashok; Song, Zhili; Bedel, Olivier; Zhang, Bailin; Hopke, Joern; Deng, Gejing; Zhu, Chen; Macé, Sandrine; Chiron, Marielle; Adrian, Francisco; Fukao, Taro; Basile, Frank G.; Martin, Thomas
• Is Part Of: Transfusion. Volume 62:Issue 11(2022)
• Page Start: 2334
• Page End: 2348
• Publication Date: 2022-10-14
• Subjects: Hematology -- Periodicals; Blood -- Transfusion -- Periodicals; Blood Group Antigens -- Periodicals; Blood Preservation -- Periodicals; Blood Transfusion -- Periodicals; 615
• DOI: 10.1111/trf.17137
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0041-1132

Abstract

Abstract: Background: There are two FDA‐approved anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibodies for treatment of multiple myeloma: isatuximab and daratumumab. Owing to expression of CD38 on reagent red blood cells (RBCs), these antibodies interfere with indirect antiglobulin tests (IATs). We sought to understand differences in such interference by performing binding experiments. Study Design and Methods: In vitro experiments to compare the binding to RBCs of isatuximab and daratumumab alone or in the presence of a mouse anti‐human CD38 antibody (HB‐7 or AT13/5) or a nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide‐analog CD38 inhibitor were performed and quantified by flow cytometry, imaging, mass spectrometry, surface plasmon resonance, and LigandTracer technologies. Serologic testing was performed on plasma samples spiked with isatuximab or daratumumab. Results: CD38 expressed on RBCs can be directly bound by daratumumab, whereas isatuximab requires a co‐factor, such as HB‐7, AT13/5, or a CD38 inhibitor, suggesting that the isatuximab epitope on RBCs is masked in vitro. Daratumumab samples more frequently showed interference and had stronger reactions than isatuximab samples. Dithiothreitol treatment was equally effective in mitigating the interference caused by either drug. Discussion: Both isatuximab and daratumumab interfere with IATs but at different magnitudes, reflecting distinct binding to CD38 on RBCs. From the binding studies, we conclude that the isatuximab epitope on RBCs is masked in vitro and binding requires a certain CD38 conformation or co‐factor. This circumstance may explain why interference is seen only in a subset of patients receiving isatuximab when compared with interference seen in most patients on daratumumab therapy. Abstract :