Fasano, Ross M.

Abstract Background Red cell alloimmunization complicates sickle cell disease (SCD) management despite current widespread prophylactic Rh/K matching in the United States (US). Regional antibody patterns remain poorly characterized. Study Design and Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 2965 SCD patients from 9 US sites (2010–2022). All hospitals prophylactically match for Rh and K antigens. Each site collected demographics, antigen status, antibody histories, and antibody screen results from their laboratory information system. Results Overall antibody prevalence was 29.7% with dramatic institutional variation (17.9%–56.0%). Alloantibody prevalence was 27.5%. Most autoantibody‐positive patients (74.23%) also had alloantibodies, identifying a high‐risk population. A third of patients with positive antibody histories had negative screens. Pediatric patients showed markedly different antibody profiles than adults. Hospitals’ antibody patterns clustered by patient age rather than geography. Rh and K antibodies were the most common and also most likely to co‐occur, followed by S, Fya, and Jkb antibodies. Antibodies against Jsa (1.82%), V (1.75%), and Kpa (1.69%) were more prevalent than anti‐Jka (1.28%). Despite regional antibody variation, antigen frequencies remained overall consistent. In antigen–antibody pairwise comparisons, 3.15% were antigen‐negative and antibody‐positive reflecting alloimmunization; 0.47% were both antibody‐ and antigen‐positive, suggesting partial/variant antigens. Discussion Substantial institutional variation in antibody prevalence suggests need for site‐specific approaches to testing and prophylactic matching. High co‐occurrence of auto‐ and alloantibodies, antibody immunogenicity patterns, and antigen–antibody discordances support the need for further research and consideration of refined testing and/or matching strategies beyond the current Rh and K standard.

Abstract Background Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion may be lifesaving, however transfusion-transmitted infections (TTI) and transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease (TA-GVHD) still pose a threat despite current donor selection and testing requirements. Amustaline (S-303)/glutathione (GSH) pathogen reduction (PR) is designed to inactivate infectious microbes and leukocytes in RBCs. The RedeS study evaluates the safety and efficacy of amustaline/GSH PR-RBCs compared to conventional RBCs in a broad spectrum of patients requiring acute and/or repeated RBC transfusion support. Methods RedeS is a Phase 3, prospective, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-design study, with a 6-month extension option to evaluate patients requiring repeated transfusions including red cell exchange (RCE).Eligible subjects will be stratified according to site, baseline bleeding status and participation in the extension period. The study arms include a transfusion period of 28-days for anemia with any bleeding or non-bleeding patients or a 28-day+6-month extension for non-bleeding patients with chronic anemia requiring repeated simple transfusions, or for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) expected to receive three RCE procedures. The study will seek to enroll 600-800 subjects in the overall safety analysis, including ~140 repeatedly-transfused subjects in the 6-month extension including up to 30 subjects receiving three RCE procedures. The primary safety endpoints are the proportion of patients with any treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to study RBC transfusion through 28 days after the last study transfusion, and the proportion of patients with treatment-emergent antibodies with confirmed specificity to PR-RBCs. The primary efficacy endpoint is the hemoglobin (Hb) increment in subjects who are non-bleeding at baseline, adjusted for the grams of Hb transfused and averaged over multiple transfusions. With 352 evaluable transfused non-bleeding subjects (176 per treatment group) from either arm, the study will have 80% power to demonstrate non-inferiority, defined as a Hb increment treatment difference of no more than 15% of the Control group mean, assuming a Control arm coefficient of variation of 50%. Discussion RedeS will characterize the safety of amustaline/GSH PR-RBCs and is designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of PR-RBCs to conventional RBCs with respect to Hb increment, a common pragmatic clinical assessment of RBC transfusion effectiveness.

AbstractBackgroundHemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) is caused by maternal alloantibody‐mediated destruction of fetal/neonatal red blood cells (RBCs). While the pathophysiology has been well‐characterized, the clinical and laboratory monitoring practices are inconsistent.MethodsWe surveyed 103 US institutions to characterize laboratory testing practices for individuals with fetuses at risk of HDFN. Questions included antibody testing and titration methodologies, the use of critical titers, paternal and cell‐free fetal DNA testing, and result reporting and documentation practices.ResultsThe response rate was 44% (45/103). Most respondents (96%, 43/45) assess maternal antibody titers, primarily using conventional tube‐based methods only (79%, 34/43). Among respondents, 51% (23/45) rescreen all individuals for antibodies in the third trimester, and 60% (27/45) perform paternal RBC antigen testing. A minority (27%, 12/45) utilize cell‐free fetal DNA (cffDNA) testing to predict fetal antigen status. Maternal antibody titers are performed even when the fetus is not considered to be at risk of HDFN based on cffDNA or paternal RBC antigen testing at 23% (10/43) of sites that assess titers.DiscussionThere is heterogeneity across US institutions regarding the testing, monitoring, and reporting practices for pregnant individuals with fetuses at risk of HDFN, including the use of antibody titers in screening and monitoring programs, the use of paternal RBC antigen testing and cffDNA, and documentation of fetal antigen results. Standardization of laboratory testing protocols and closer collaboration between the blood bank and transfusion medicine service and the obstetric/maternal‐fetal medicine service are needed.

Abstract In July 2022, these guidelines were reviewed by an expert work group convened by ASH. Review included limited searches for new evidence and discussion of the search results. Following this review, the ASH Committee on Quality agreed to continue monitoring the supporting evidence rather than revise or retire these guidelines at this time. Limited searches and expert review will be repeated annually going forward until these guidelines are revised or retired. Background: Red cell transfusions remain a mainstay of therapy for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), but pose significant clinical challenges. Guidance for specific indications and administration of transfusion, as well as screening, prevention, and management of alloimmunization, delayed hemolytic transfusion reactions (DHTRs), and iron overload may improve outcomes. Objective: Our objective was to develop evidence-based guidelines to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about transfusion support for SCD and the management of transfusion-related complications. Methods: The American Society of Hematology formed a multidisciplinary panel that was balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest and that included a patient representative. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes. The Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline development process. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to form recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel developed 10 recommendations focused on red cell antigen typing and matching, indications, and mode of administration (simple vs red cell exchange), as well as screening, prevention, and management of alloimmunization, DHTRs, and iron overload. Conclusions: The majority of panel recommendations were conditional due to the paucity of direct, high-certainty evidence for outcomes of interest. Research priorities were identified, including prospective studies to understand the role of serologic vs genotypic red cell matching, the mechanism of HTRs resulting from specific alloantigens to inform therapy, the role and timing of regular transfusions during pregnancy for women, and the optimal treatment of transfusional iron overload in SCD.