Back

Quantitative Fetal Hemoglobin Measurement: GazelleTM Point-of-Care Electrophoresis versus Standard HPLC Methodology

Williams, T. N.; Connon, R.; Muhindo, R.; Amorut, D.; Ongodia, P.; Okalebo, C.; Abeso, J.; Alaroker, F.; Asio, S.; Odiit, A.; Kiyaga, C.; Uyoga, S.; Mochamah, G.; Nyutu, G.; Mogaka, C.; Muyinda, A.; Abongo, G.; Maitland, K.; Gibb, D.; Walker, A. S.; George, E. C.; Ware, R.; Olupot Olupot, P.

2026-10-05 hematology
10.64898/2026.09.30.26364074 medRxiv
Show abstract

Quantitative measurement of fetal hemoglobin (HbF) using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is standard but expensive and widely unavailable in low-income settings. The newer Gazelle method, which employs single-use alkaline electrophoresis cartridges, provides a portable and relatively inexpensive potential alternative. In the current study, we tested 3055 venous blood samples collected from 1780 children with sickle cell anemia who were enrolled into the H-PRIME trial by both Gazelle and the Bio-Rad D-10 HPLC instrument, before and during hydroxyurea treatment. Data reinterpretation was required to quantify accurately high HbF values derived using the D-10. Mean (standard deviation) baseline HbF values by HPLC and Gazelle (N=2042) were 11.4% (SD 5.9%) versus 16.3% (SD 7.5%), respectively, while mean on-treatment HbF values (N=1013) were 18.9% (SD 9.0%) versus 25.4% (SD 11.5%), respectively. While overall agreement was good (Lins concordance 0.76, 95% CI 0.75-0.78), HbF values derived using Gazelle were modestly higher than HPLC values (Bland-Altman agreement mean +5.4%, 95%CI -2.4% to +13.2%), with the difference between measures increasing at higher HbF percentages. With strong concordance and more easily interpretable HbF values, Gazelle represents an attractive and inexpensive alternative to HPLC for HbF quantification in the low-income settings where most patients with sickle cell anemia live.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.