Abstract

BACKGROUND Platelet transfusions can induce alloimmunization against HLA antigens. The use of pathogen-reduced platelet concentrates (PCs) was suggested to reduce HLA alloimmunization and concomitant transfusion refractoriness. METHODS This study investigated HLA alloimmunization in available samples from 448 hemato-oncological patients who were randomized for the Pathogen Reduction Evaluation and Predictive Analytical Rating Score (PREPAReS) trial to receive either untreated or pathogen-reduced PCs (Mirasol, Terumo BCT Inc.). Anti-HLA Class I and II antibodies were determined before the first platelet transfusion and weekly thereafter using multiplex assay with standard cutoffs to detect low- as well as high-level antibodies. RESULTS When using the lower cutoff, in patients who were antibody negative at enrollment, 5.4% (n = 12) developed anti-HLA Class I antibodies after receiving untreated PCs, while this was significantly higher in patients receiving pathogen-reduced PCs, 12.8% (n = 29; p = 0.009, intention-to-treat [ITT] analysis). A similar but nonsignificant trend was observed in the per-protocol (PP) analysis (5.4% vs. 10.1%; p = 0.15). HLA class II antibody formation was similar between both types of PCs in the ITT analysis, while the PP analysis showed a trend toward lower immunization after receiving pathogen-reduced PCs. Multivariate analysis identified receiving pathogen-reduced platelets as an independent risk factor for HLA Class I alloimmunization (ITT: odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 3.02 [1.42-6.51], PP: odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 2.77 [1.00-5.40]), without affecting HLA Class II alloimmunization. When using the high cutoff value, the difference in HLA Class I alloimmunization between study arms remained significant in the ITT analysis and again was not significant in the PP analysis. CONCLUSION Our data clearly indicate that Mirasol pathogen inactivation does not prevent HLA Class I or II alloimmunization after platelet transfusions.

Abstract

Importance: Pathogen reduction of platelet concentrates may reduce transfusion-transmitted infections but is associated with qualitative impairment, which could have clinical significance with regard to platelet hemostatic capacity. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of platelets in additive solution treated with amotosalen-UV-A vs untreated platelets in plasma or in additive solution in patients with thrombocytopenia and hematologic malignancies. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Evaluation of the Efficacy of Platelets Treated With Pathogen Reduction Process (EFFIPAP) study was a randomized, noninferiority, 3-arm clinical trial performed from May 16, 2013, through January 21, 2016, at 13 French tertiary university hospitals. Clinical signs of bleeding were assessed daily until the end of aplasia, transfer to another department, need for a specific platelet product, or 30 days after enrollment. Consecutive adult patients with bone marrow aplasia, expected hospital stay of more than 10 days, and expected need of platelet transfusions were included. Interventions: At least 1 transfusion of platelets in additive solution with amotosalen-UV-A treatment, in plasma, or in additive solution. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of patients with grade 2 or higher bleeding as defined by World Health Organization criteria. Results: Among 790 evaluable patients (mean [SD] age, 55 [13.4] years; 458 men [58.0%]), the primary end point was observed in 126 receiving pathogen-reduced platelets in additive solution (47.9%; 95% CI, 41.9%-54.0%), 114 receiving platelets in plasma (43.5%; 95% CI, 37.5%-49.5%), and 120 receiving platelets in additive solution (45.3%; 95% CI, 39.3%-51.3%). With a per-protocol population with a prespecified margin of 12.5%, noninferiority was not achieved when pathogen-reduced platelets in additive solution were compared with platelets in plasma (4.4%; 95% CI, -4.1% to 12.9%) but was achieved when the pathogen-reduced platelets were compared with platelets in additive solution (2.6%; 95% CI, -5.9% to 11.1%). The proportion of patients with grade 3 or 4 bleeding was not different among treatment arms. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the hemostatic efficacy of pathogen-reduced platelets in thrombopenic patients with hematologic malignancies was noninferior to platelets in additive solution, such noninferiority was not achieved when comparing pathogen-reduced platelets with platelets in plasma. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01789762.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people with thrombocytopenia. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy since the mid-1970s, some areas continue to provoke debate especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding. OBJECTIVES To determine whether agents that can be used as alternatives, or adjuncts, to platelet transfusions for people with haematological malignancies undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation are safe and effective at preventing bleeding. SEARCH METHODS We searched 11 bibliographic databases and four ongoing trials databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE (OvidSP, 1946 to 19 May 2016), Embase (OvidSP, 1974 to 19 May 2016), PubMed (e-publications only: searched 19 May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP and the ISRCTN Register (searched 19 May 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials in people with haematological malignancies undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation who were allocated to either an alternative to platelet transfusion (artificial platelet substitutes, platelet-poor plasma, fibrinogen concentrate, recombinant activated factor VII, desmopressin (DDAVP), or thrombopoietin (TPO) mimetics) or a comparator (placebo, standard care or platelet transfusion). We excluded studies of antifibrinolytic drugs, as they were the focus of another review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors screened all electronically derived citations and abstracts of papers identified by the review search strategy. Two review authors assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS We identified 16 eligible trials. Four trials are ongoing and two have been completed but the results have not yet been published (trial completion dates: April 2012 to February 2017). Therefore, the review included 10 trials in eight references with 554 participants. Six trials (336 participants) only included participants with acute myeloid leukaemia undergoing intensive chemotherapy, two trials (38 participants) included participants with lymphoma undergoing intensive chemotherapy and two trials (180 participants) reported participants undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Men and women were equally well represented in the trials. The age range of participants included in the trials was from 16 years to 81 years. All trials took place in high-income countries. The manufacturers of the agent sponsored eight trials that were under investigation, and two trials did not report their source of funding.No trials assessed artificial platelet substitutes, fibrinogen concentrate, recombinant activated factor VII or desmopressin.Nine trials compared a TPO mimetic to placebo or standard care; seven of these used pegylated recombinant human megakaryocyte growth and differentiation factor (PEG-rHuMGDF) and two used recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO).One trial compared platelet-poor plasma to platelet transfusion.We considered that all the trials included in this review were at high risk of bias and meta-analysis was not possible in seven trials due to problems with the way data were reported.We are very uncertain whether TPO mimetics reduce the number of participants with any bleeding episode (odds ratio (OR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.62, one trial, 120 participants, very low quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether TPO mimetics reduce the risk of a life-threatening bleed after 30 days (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.06 to 33.14, three trials, 209 participants, very low quality evidence); or after 90 days (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.37, one trial, 120 participants, very low quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether TPO mimetics reduce platelet transfusion requirements after 30 days (mean difference -3.00 units, 95% CI

Abstract

A recent randomized trial (TOPPS) compared prophylactic platelet transfusions (for counts <10x10(9)/L) with a strategy of no-prophylaxis in adults with hematologic malignancies. Seventy percent of enrolled patients received an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Statistical models were developed to explore which patient factors or clinical characteristics are important prognostic factors for bleeding. These models were presented for baseline characteristics and for recurrent analysis of bleeding to assess the risks of World Health Organization grade 2-4 bleeding on any given day. Additional analyses explored the importance of fever. Treatment plan (chemotherapy/allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant), female sex, and treatment arm (no-prophylaxis) were significantly associated with an increased number of days of bleeding. The number of days with a platelet count <10x109/L was significantly associated with a grade 2-4 bleed (P<0.0001). Patients with a temperature of at least 38degreeC had the highest hazard of a grade 2-4 bleed (hazard ratio: 1.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.3 to 2.4, compared with the risk in patients with a temperature <37.5degreeC). There was no evidence that minor bleeding predicted a grade 2-4 bleed. The results highlighted the limited role of correction of thrombocytopenia by platelet transfusion in reducing the risk of bleeding. Clinically stable patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation had the lowest risk of bleeding and benefited least from prophylactic platelet transfusions. Prospective studies are required to address the usefulness of risk factors to support better targeted platelet transfusions. TOPPS Controlled-Trials.com number ISRCTN08758735. Copyright© Ferrata Storti Foundation.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients with bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004 and updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. We have now split this review into four smaller reviews looking at these questions individually; this review is the first part of the original review. OBJECTIVES To determine whether a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given when patient bleeds) is as effective and safe as a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding, usually when the platelet count falls below a given trigger level) in patients with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation. SEARCH METHODS We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent or treat bleeding in patients with malignant haematological disorders receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS We identified seven RCTs that compared therapeutic platelet transfusions to prophylactic platelet transfusions in haematology patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT. One trial is still ongoing, leaving six trials eligible with a total of 1195 participants. These trials were conducted between 1978 and 2013 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations. We were able to critically appraise five of these studies, which contained separate data for each arm, and were unable to perform quantitative analysis on one study that did not report the numbers of participants in each treatment arm.Overall the quality of evidence per outcome was low to moderate according to the GRADE approach. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the studies identified had some threats to validity. We deemed only one study to be at low risk of bias in all domains other than blinding.Two RCTs (801 participants) reported at least one bleeding episode within 30 days of the start of the study. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to considerable statistical heterogeneity between studies. The statistical heterogeneity seen may relate to the different methods used in studies for the assessment and grading of bleeding. The underlying patient diagnostic and treatment categories also appeared to have some effect on bleeding risk. Individually these studies showed a similar effect, that a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion strategy was associated with an increased risk of clinically significant bleeding compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy. Number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event per participant was higher in the therapeutic-only group than in the prophylactic group (one RCT; 600 participants; mean difference 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.90; moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in the number of participants with severe or

Abstract

BACKGROUND Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic due to bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: prophylactic versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. This review has now been split into four smaller reviews looking at these questions individually; this review compares prophylactic platelet transfusion thresholds. OBJECTIVES To determine whether different platelet transfusion thresholds for administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding) affect the efficacy and safety of prophylactic platelet transfusions in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). SEARCH METHODS We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, 23 July 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in people with haematological disorders (receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT) that compared different thresholds for administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions (low trigger (5 x 10(9)/L); standard trigger (10 x 10(9)/L); higher trigger (20 x 10(9)/L, 30 x 10(9)/L, 50 x 10(9)/L); or alternative platelet trigger (for example platelet mass)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS Three trials met our predefined inclusion criteria and were included for analysis in the review (499 participants). All three trials compared a standard trigger (10 x 10(9)/L) versus a higher trigger (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L). None of the trials compared a low trigger versus a standard trigger or an alternative platelet trigger. The trials were conducted between 1991 and 2001 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations.The original review contained four trials (658 participants); in the previous update of this review we excluded one trial (159 participants) because fewer than 80% of participants had a haematological disorder. We identified no new trials in this update of the review.Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the included studies had some threats to validity.Three studies reported the number of participants with at least one clinically significant bleeding episode within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with a clinically significant bleeding episode between the standard and higher trigger groups (three studies; 499 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.90; low-quality evidence).One study reported the number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event (adjusted for repeated measures). There was no evidence of a difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between the standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 255 participants; relative proportion of days with World Health Organization

Abstract

BACKGROUND A recent randomized trial compared a policy of no prophylaxis with a policy of prophylactic platelet (PLT) transfusions at counts of fewer than 10x10(9) /L in patients with hematologic malignancies. The results suggested the effectiveness of prophylactic PLT transfusions may vary according to patient diagnosis and treatment plan. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS This article presents full subgroup analyses and compares treatment effects between autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (autoHSCT; n=421) and chemotherapy/allogeneic HSCT (chemo/alloHSCT; n=179) patients. RESULTS Prespecified subgroup analysis found that the reduction in proportion of patients experiencing WHO Grade 2 to 4 bleeds (main trial outcome) seen in the prophylaxis arm was of greater magnitude in chemo/alloHSCT than autoHSCT patients (interaction p=0.04). Analysis of secondary outcomes showed a shorter time to first bleeding episode with no prophylaxis in the chemo/alloHSCT group (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval CI, 1.21-2.79; p=0.004) compared to the autoHSCT group (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.85-1.48; p=0.4; interaction p=0.08). The increased number of days with Grade 2 to 4 bleeds with a no-prophylaxis policy was similar in chemo/alloHSCT (rate ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.10-3.26) and in autoHSCT patients (rate ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.04-1.97). Both subgroups showed significant reductions in PLT transfusions with a no-prophylaxis strategy. CONCLUSION There is evidence that the effectiveness of prophylactic PLT transfusions may differ between subgroups, with chemo/alloHSCT patients receiving prophylactic PLT transfusions appearing to show a greater reduction in bleeding outcomes compared to patients following a no-prophylaxis policy. 2014 Crown copyright. This article Impact of Prophylactic Platelet Transfusions on Bleeding Events in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Sub-group Analysis of a Randomised Trial was written by Stanworth, Estcourt, Llewelyn, Murphy, & Wood. It is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Abstract

BACKGROUND During the transfusion of blood components, the transfer of allogeneic donor white blood cells (WBCs) can mediate transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease (TA-GVHD). To minimize the reaction, exposure of blood products to gamma irradiation is currently the standard of care. The aim of our study was to evaluate and compare hemostatic function, transfusion efficacy, and safety of gamma-irradiated single-donor apheresis platelet concentrates (PCs) and of conventional non-irradiated PCs in patients with chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia. METHODS 20 double-dose single-donor leukoreduced PCs were split in two identical units; one was gamma-irradiated with 25 Gy (study arm A) and the other remains non-irradiated (study arm B). Both units were stored under equal conditions. Hematologic patients were randomly assigned to receive gamma-irradiated or conventional non-irradiated PCs. Hemostatic function was evaluated by thrombelastography (TEG). TEG measurements were taken pre transfusion and 1 and 24 h post transfusion. TEG profiles were measured, noting the time to initiate clotting (R), the angle of clot formation (alpha), and the maximum amplitude (clot strength (MA)). Whole blood samples were collected from these thrombocytopenic patients at 1 and 24 h for PLT count increments (CIs) and corrected count increments (CCIs) with assessments of transfusion efficacy. Time to next PLT transfusion, transfusion requirement of RBCs, active bleeding, and adverse events (AEs), were analyzed. RESULTS No differences could be found in hemostatic function parameters (MA, R, and alpha) between study arms A and B (all p values > 0.096) pre transfusion as well as 1 and 24 h post transfusion. No differences between study arms A and B were observed for mean (+ standard deviation (SD)) 1-hour CCI (12.83 + 6.33 vs. 11.59 + 5.97) and 24-hour CCI (6.56 + 4.10 vs. 5.76 + 4.05). Mean 1-hour CI and 24-hour CI were not significantly different in both study arms (p = 0.254 and p = 0.242 respectively). Median time to the next PC transfusion after study PC was not significantly different between groups: (2.4 vs. 2.2 days, p = 0.767). No differences could be found in transfusion requirement of red blood cells (p = 0.744) between both study arms. There were also no regarding bleeding, adverse events, and acute transfusion reaction(s). CONCLUSIONS This study confirms safety of gamma-irradiated PCs for treatment thrombocytopenia. Hemostatic function, transfusion efficacy, bleeding, and safety of single-donor apheresis PCs treated with gamma irradiation versus untreated control PCs are comparable.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The effectiveness of platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding in patients with hematologic cancers remains unclear. This trial assessed whether a policy of not giving prophylactic platelet transfusions was as effective and safe as a policy of providing prophylaxis. METHODS We conducted this randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial at 14 centers in the United Kingdom and Australia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive, or not to receive, prophylactic platelet transfusions when morning platelet counts were less than 10x10(9) per liter. Eligible patients were persons 16 years of age or older who were receiving chemotherapy or undergoing stem-cell transplantation and who had or were expected to have thrombocytopenia. The primary end point was bleeding of World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2, 3, or 4 up to 30 days after randomization. RESULTS A total of 600 patients (301 in the no-prophylaxis group and 299 in the prophylaxis group) underwent randomization between 2006 and 2011. Bleeding of WHO grade 2, 3, or 4 occurred in 151 of 300 patients (50%) in the no-prophylaxis group, as compared with 128 of 298 (43%) in the prophylaxis group (adjusted difference in proportions, 8.4 percentage points; 90% confidence interval, 1.7 to 15.2; P=0.06 for noninferiority). Patients in the no-prophylaxis group had more days with bleeding and a shorter time to the first bleeding episode than did patients in the prophylaxis group. Platelet use was markedly reduced in the no-prophylaxis group. A prespecified subgroup analysis identified similar rates of bleeding in the two study groups among patients undergoing autologous stem-cell transplantation. CONCLUSIONS The results of our study support the need for the continued use of prophylaxis with platelet transfusion and show the benefit of such prophylaxis for reducing bleeding, as compared with no prophylaxis. A significant number of patients had bleeding despite prophylaxis. (Funded by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Committee and the Australian Red Cross Blood Service; TOPPS Controlled-Trials.com number, ISRCTN08758735.).

Abstract

BACKGROUND Platelet (PLT) support is critical to the care of patients with thrombocytopenia, but allogeneic transfusions carry risk. Pathogen reduction mitigates some transfusion risks, but effects on PLT function remain a concern. This clinical pilot study assessed the effect of pathogen reduction technology with riboflavin plus ultraviolet light using thrombelastography (TEG). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS This prospective, randomized, crossover study compared Mirasol-treated (MIR) and standard reference (REF) PLT transfusions. PLT counts and TEG measurements were taken at pretransfusion and 1- and 24-hour-posttransfusion time points. The primary outcome measure was the pretransfusion to 1-hour-posttransfusion change in maximum amplitude (MA1hr ). Secondary endpoints included MA among other time points, relative MA, and the PLT count-MA correlation. RESULTS Of 16 enrolled patients, one withdrew before study treatment and three did not require two transfusions, leaving 12 patients in the efficacy analyses (seven MIR-REF, five REF-MIR). MA1hr (mean+/-SD) was 10.60+/-6.47mm for MIR and 14.33+/-5.38mm for REF (p=0.20, n=10). MA24hr was 9.49+/-7.94 for MIR and 7.13+/-3.08 for REF (p=0.38, n=9); MA24hr-1hr was -1.11+/-2.95 for MIR and -7.20+/-4.81 for REF (p=0.016, n=8). MA values for MIR and REF correlated with the log of PLT count (rMIR =0.6901, rREF =0.7399). CONCLUSION TEG is sensitive to changes in hemostatic function resulting from a single PLT transfusion. MIR and REF provided similar increments in hemostatic function in the immediate posttransfusion period and at 24 hours. A significant difference detected for MA24hr-1hr suggests different PLT clearance mechanisms. The relationship of these variables to clinically meaningful outcomes, for example, bleeding events or transfusion requirements, has yet to be determined. 2012 American Association of Blood Banks.