Thibodeaux, Suzanne R.

Importance Recent case reports suggest that B antigen–containing blood products may be associated with anaphylactic transfusion reactions in recipients with preformed immunoglobulin E to galactose- α -1,3-galactose (alpha-gal). Objective To test the association of local alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) prevalence and allergic transfusion reaction (ATR) in patients with blood type O. Design, Setting, and Participants In this international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study at academic medical centers, sites were assigned to AGS high- or low-prevalence clusters based on the known geographic distribution of AGS. Data were collected on platelet or plasma transfusions and ATRs during 2020 to 2024. Consecutive patients receiving platelet or plasma transfusions were included. Exposures Patients with blood type O who received B or AB units and patients with blood type O who received O units (reference group) in AGS high- and low-prevalence clusters were compared. Main Outcomes and Measures Before data collection, the hypothesis was that if transfusion-related alpha-gal syndrome (TRAGS) is a true clinical entity, excess ATRs to group B or AB units would be detected in AGS high-prevalence regions exclusively. The main measure was the overall risk ratio (RR) for ATRs to B or AB plasma or platelets in AGS high- vs low-prevalence clusters. Results In total, 558 823 platelet and plasma transfusions at 40 sites in 5 countries were analyzed, of which ATRs occurred in 1744 transfusions (0.3%). In the US AGS high-prevalence cluster (9 sites), significantly more ATRs of any severity occurred among patients with blood type O who received B or AB units vs patients with blood type O who received O units (overall RR, 3.93; 95% CI, 2.96-5.21; P < .001). In contrast, in the primary analysis of the AGS low-prevalence cluster (15 sites), excess ATRs to B or AB units were not detected. In subgroup analyses among patients with blood type O receiving B units, the RR for moderate to severe ATRs was 9.14 (95% CI, 5.39-15.52; P < .001) in the AGS high-prevalence cluster vs 2.15 (95% CI, 1.34-3.47; P = .002) in the AGS low-prevalence cluster. Outside the US, a signal consistent with TRAGS was not detected. Conclusions and Relevance This cohort study provides provocative epidemiologic evidence that TRAGS may be a unique manifestation of AGS and a previously unrecognized risk associated with transfusion. In AGS high-prevalence regions, blood collectors and hospital transfusion services should consider approaches to preventing severe ATRs from B or AB plasma or platelet units.

ABSTRACT Collection of hematopoietic progenitor cells and mononuclear cells by leukocytapheresis is a critical step of procuring cellular starting materials for future therapeutic use. Leukocytapheresis requires use of anticoagulant to prevent blood clotting in the extracorporeal circuit during collection. A commonly used anticoagulant is Acid Citrate Dextrose Solution A (ACD‐A). ACD‐A primarily prevents blood clotting by reversibly chelating free ionized calcium, which is essential for the clotting cascade. Electrolytes frequently affected by ACD‐A include calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphate, and bicarbonate. Risks for development of electrolyte derangements include procedure‐related parameters as well as patient comorbidities. Symptoms range from mild paresthesias to life‐threatening cardiac arrhythmias. Recognition of related signs and symptoms is important for prompt intervention with procedure modification and electrolyte replacement to optimize patient safety. This paper will provide an enhanced understanding of the underlying pathophysiology and assist in timely identification and management of electrolyte abnormalities associated with cellular therapy collections.

Abstract Background Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a hemoglobinopathy with limited treatment options. Genetic modification of the patient's own hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) offers an avenue to curative therapy using the patient's own cells. Many challenges exist in collecting sufficient numbers of starting material for manufacturing, beginning with the pre‐mobilization optimization of the patient to the mobilization, collection, and post‐collection phases. Study Design and Methods A working group within the Cellular Therapy Subcommittee of the American Society for Apheresis Clinical Applications Committee describes the challenges associated with apheresis collection of the starting material for gene therapy (GT) product manufacturing for patients with SCD and discusses potential strategies for overcoming these challenges. Results and Discussion Patients must undergo automated red blood cell exchange (RCE) to lower hemoglobin S in a relatively short window of time before apheresis collection of HSCs. The risks and benefits of transfusion as well as the logistics of providing adequate and appropriate blood products must be considered. Limited agents are available for mobilization of HSCs into the peripheral blood for collection and the timing of administration is short. Each collection cycle consists of RCE followed by at least three mobilization and apheresis collection events in addition to collecting backup cells. More than one cycle is typically needed to collect enough cells for GT drug product manufacturing. Optimization of patient factors and apheresis instrument parameters leads to better collection yields. Early and frequent ongoing coordination with all stakeholders involved is critical to developing personalized treatment plans for patients.

AbstractBackgroundChimeric antigen receptor T (CAR‐T) cell successes have encouraged continued clinical study. Apheresis collection of starting material for CAR‐T cell therapy product manufacturing is critical but described approaches suggest variability and clinical guidelines are currently lacking. The goal of this study was to gather and assess variability in apheresis collection descriptions in publicly available CAR T‐cell therapy clinical trials.Study designWe searched clinicaltrials.gov (a publicly available clinical trial database) for “chimeric antigen receptor T cells” on July 01, 2020 and studies accessed July 30, 2020‐August 15, 2020. Data collected included date posted, study characteristics, apheresis mentions (number, location, and context), laboratory parameters and transfusion allowances. Apheresis context was analyzed using a qualitative inductive approach of grounded theory method with open coding. Text was classified into 37 context codes, grouped into 12 categories, and then consolidated into patient, procedure, product, and miscellaneous themes.ResultsApheresis was mentioned 1044 times in 322 (51.9%) of 621 total studies. Laboratory parameters mentioned included white blood cells (100 studies), absolute neutrophil count (220 studies), absolute lymphocyte count (102 studies), CD3+ cell (38 studies), hemoglobin (233 studies, 54 studies specified transfusion allowance), and platelet (269 studies, 48 studies specified transfusion allowance).ConclusionsApheresis collection of CAR‐T cell products is not well‐defined in clinical study descriptions and the context is inconsistent. Laboratory parameters useful for apheresis collection are variably present and do not consistently align with current practices. Further exploration, and clinical guideline development will encourage alignment of apheresis collections for CAR‐T cell products.