OʼBrien, Jennifer

Abstract Patients treated with antineoplastic therapy often develop thrombocytopenia requiring platelet transfusion, which has potential to exacerbate pulmonary injury. This study tested the hypothesis that amotosalen-UVA pathogen–reduced platelet components (PRPCs) do not potentiate pulmonary dysfunction compared with conventional platelet components (CPCs). A prospective, multicenter, open-label, sequential cohort study evaluated the incidence of treatment-emergent assisted mechanical ventilation initiated for pulmonary dysfunction (TEAMV-PD). The first cohort received CPC. After the CPC cohort, each site enrolled a second cohort transfused with PRPC. Other outcomes included clinically significant pulmonary adverse events (CSPAE) and the incidence of treatment-emergent acute respiratory distress syndrome (TEARDS) diagnosed by blinded expert adjudication. The incidence of TEAMV-PD in all patients (1068 PRPC and 1223 CPC) was less for PRPC (1.7 %) than CPC (3.1%) with a treatment difference of –1.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], –2.7 to –0.2). In patients requiring ≥2 PCs, the incidence of TEAMV-PD was reduced for PRPC recipients compared with CPC recipients (treatment difference, –2.4%; 95% CI, –4.2 to –0.6). CSPAE increased with increasing PC exposure but were not significantly different between the cohorts. For patients receiving ≥2 platelet transfusions, TEARDS occurred in 1.3% PRPC and 2.6% CPC recipients (P = .086). Bayesian analysis demonstrated PRPC may be superior in reducing TEAMV-PD and TEARDS for platelet transfusion recipients compared with CPC recipients, with 99.2% and 88.8% probability, respectively. In this study, PRPC compared with CPC demonstrated high probability of reduced severe pulmonary injury requiring assisted mechanical ventilation in patients with hematology disorders dependent on platelet transfusion. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02549222.

AbstractIntroductionThis case describes passenger lymphocyte syndrome (PLS) generating human platelet antigen 1a (HPA‐1a) alloantibodies against the recipient's platelets after liver transplant. Given the rarity of PLS, especially in liver transplant with HPA‐1a alloantibodies, disease course and management options are poorly described.MethodsThe patient had cirrhosis secondary to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis complicated by hepatocellular carcinoma, encephalopathy, and severe ascites. The model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD) score was 15 at presentation. The patient developed hepatic artery thrombosis after an orthotopic liver transplant and was relisted for transplant with a MELD score of 40. The patient received a hepatitis C virus antibody positive, hepatitis C virus nucleic amplification test positive donor liver on postoperative day (POD) 7 after first transplant. On POD 7 after the second transplant, the patient developed profound thrombocytopenia refractory to platelet infusion. They were found to have serum antibody to HPA‐1a based upon serum platelet alloantibody testing. The donor was later found to be negative for HPA‐1a by genetic testing. However, the patient's native platelets were HPA‐1a positive. The patient was diagnosed with PLS.ResultsThe patient's treatment course included 57 units of platelets transfused, emergency splenectomy, rituximab, plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), eltrombopag, romiplostim, and efgartigimod.DiscussionThe synergistic effect of efgartigimod with eltrombopag and romiplostim most likely resolved the patient's thrombocytopenia. This case represents a novel use of efgartigimod in the treatment of passenger lymphocyte syndrome following liver transplant.

e24104 Background: There is a high rate of anemia present in cancer patients and anemia is also a common referral to a hematologist. Symptomatic anemia can significantly impair an individual’s functional status so identifying its cause is essential for improving quality of life. Correction of nutritional deficiencies, like iron, B12, and folate deficiency can improve hemoglobin counts, prevent recurrent PRBC transfusions, and can often resolve the anemia. In a busy academic hematology oncology practice, we hypothesize that it is easy to overlook performing a basic nutritional evaluation especially in the setting of other causes for anemia such as chemotherapy, hemolysis, blood loss, chronic kidney disease, and other disorders. We aim to evaluate the frequency of anemia workup in the hematology and oncology division at our academic institution. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of all hematology oncology patients seen in our clinic who received a blood transfusion in 2021. All patients were 18 years old or order and received at least one-unit PRBC transfusion as an outpatient. One “transfusion event” was defined as any number of PRBC transfusions on a single day and any subsequent transfusions within a 90-day periods. A single patient, therefore, can have multiple distinct transfusion events. We analyzed whether patients received a “basic” anemia evaluation, defined as checking ferritin, iron saturation, B12, and folate levels within 3 months before or after the first transfusion, and whether a discrepancy in practice patterns exists between different hematology oncology subspecialties. Results: At the interim analysis, we identified 368 transfusion events for 275 patients. Those events were ordered by providers (physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant) in the following subspecialties: oncology (n = 20), malignant hematology (n = 18), classical hematology (n = 3), and fellow-in-training (n = 5). A basic anemia workup was missing in 58% (84 of 146), 27% (49 of 183), 23% (8 of 35), 40% (2 of 5) in the above groups respectively. For patients with macrocytic anemia defined as mean corpuscular volume (MCV) > 100 fL, 48% (38 of 79) did not have B12 or folate levels checked within 3 months before or after a transfusion event. For patients with MCV < 80 fL, 47% (14 of 30) did not have ferritin or iron saturation checked within 3 months before or after a transfusion event. Conclusions: We observed a high percentage of cancer and non-malignant hematology patients who did not receive a basic anemia evaluation within three months before or three months after a blood transfusion. A higher percentage of patients with solid tumors patients who required PRBC transfusions did not receive a basic anemia evaluation in a timely manner. Our study identified an area of quality improvement and need for intervention that can easily be overlooked in a busy academic hematology oncology practice.

AbstractBackgroundPlatelet transfusion carries risk of transfusion‐transmitted infection (TTI). Pathogen reduction of platelet components (PRPC) is designed to reduce TTI. Pulmonary adverse events (AEs), including transfusion‐related acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) occur with platelet transfusion.Study designAn open label, sequential cohort study of transfusion‐dependent hematology‐oncology patients was conducted to compare pulmonary safety of PRPC with conventional PC (CPC). The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment‐emergent assisted mechanical ventilation (TEAMV) by non‐inferiority. Secondary outcomes included: time to TEAMV, ARDS, pulmonary AEs, peri‐transfusion AE, hemorrhagic AE, transfusion reactions (TRs), PC and red blood cell (RBC) use, and mortality.ResultsBy modified intent‐to‐treat (mITT), 1068 patients received 5277 PRPC and 1223 patients received 5487 CPC. The cohorts had similar demographics, primary disease, and primary therapy. PRPC were non‐inferior to CPC for TEAMV (treatment difference −1.7%, 95% CI: (−3.3% to −0.1%); odds ratio = 0.53, 95% CI: (0.30, 0.94). The cumulative incidence of TEAMV for PRPC (2.9%) was significantly less than CPC (4.6%, p = .039). The incidence of ARDS was less, but not significantly different, for PRPC (1.0% vs. 1.8%, p = .151; odds ratio = 0.57, 95% CI: (0.27, 1.18). AE, pulmonary AE, and mortality were not different between cohorts. TRs were similar for PRPC and CPC (8.3% vs. 9.7%, p = .256); and allergic TR were significantly less with PRPC (p = .006). PC and RBC use were not increased with PRPC.DiscussionPRPC demonstrated reduced TEAMV with no excess treatment‐related pulmonary morbidity.

Introduction In the unprecedented era of COVID-19, ongoing research and evolution of evidence has led to ever-changing guidelines for clinical monitoring and therapeutic options. Formulating treatment protocols requires the understanding and application of the evolving research. Objective The primary objective of this study is to present a systematic evidence-based approach to synthesize the necessary data in order to optimize the management of COVID-19. Methods At Mayo Clinic Florida, we developed a multidisciplinary centralized COVID Treatment Review Panel (TRP) of expert pulmonologists, intensivists, infectious disease specialists, anesthesiologists, hematologists, rheumatologists, and hospitalists that in real-time reviews the latest evidence in peer-reviewed journals, the available clinical trials, and help guide the rapid application of therapeutics or interventions to the patient and the bedside provider. Results/Conclusions The multi-disciplinary team approach of synthesizing clinical data and coordinating care is effective in responding to rapidly evolving and changing evidence. Systematic data collection and evidence-based treatment algorithms enable physicians to rapidly translate the current literature to clinical practice, and improve care and outcomes of patients.