Bentow, Stanley

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.

AbstractBackgroundThe clinical significance of natural and treatment‐emergent antibodies specific for amustaline/glutathione pathogen‐reduced red blood cells (PRRBCs) is not known.Study Design and MethodsA Phase 3, randomized clinical trial of PRRBCs (ReCePI) compared PRRBCs with conventional RBCs in cardiac or thoracic‐aorta surgery. Subjects transfused during and for 7 days after surgery were screened for PRRBC‐specific antibodies at baseline, 28 and 75 days post‐surgery. Subjects with treatment‐emergent antibodies were assessed for evidence of hemolysis. Cryopreserved subject RBC samples were assayed by flow cytometry for circulating PRRBCs using an acridine‐specific (2S197‐2M1) monoclonal antibody, and for human IgG‐coated RBCs. RBC‐surface acridine density was quantitated using a commercial calibrated phycoerythrin (PE)‐bead panel.ResultsFive of 159 (3.1%) PRRBC and zero of 162 conventional RBC recipients developed treatment‐emergent PRRBC‐specific IgG, low titer antibodies detected 26–80 days post‐surgery after exposure to 1–3 PRRBC units, without clinical evidence of hemolysis. DAT and eluate were weak (w+) positive and PRRBC‐specific in one subject. A monocyte monolayer assay (MMA) was non‐reactive in the three subjects with an interpretable result. Flow cytometry demonstrated circulating PRRBCs in all five subjects expressing surface acridine concentrations at the limit of detection (approximately 150–301 PE molecules/RBC) compared with freshly transfused PRRBCs (approximately 7500 PE molecules/RBC). In some samples, loss of surface acridine expression could not be distinguished from clearance of the PRRBCs.DiscussionTreatment‐emergent PRRBC‐specific antibodies with the characteristics of nonclinically significant antibodies were detected in five subjects transfused with PRRBCs. Flow cytometry demonstrated persistent circulating PRRBCs with minimal surface acridine expression. (www.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03459287).

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.

Abstract Background Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is a critical supportive therapy in cardiovascular surgery (CVS). Donor selection and testing have reduced the risk of transfusion-transmitted infections; however, risks remain from bacteria, emerging viruses, pathogens for which testing is not performed and from residual donor leukocytes. Amustaline (S-303)/glutathione (GSH) treatment pathogen reduction technology is designed to inactivate a broad spectrum of infectious agents and leucocytes in RBC concentrates. The ReCePI study is a Phase 3 clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pathogen reduced RBCs transfused for acute anemia in CVS compared to conventional RBCs, and to assess the clinical significance of treatment-emergent RBC antibodies. Methods ReCePI is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, active-controlled, paralleldesign, non-inferiority study. Eligible subjects will be randomized up to 7 days before surgery to receive either leukoreduced Test (pathogen reduced) or Control (conventional) RBCs from surgery up to Day 7 post-surgery. The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of patients transfused with at least one study transfusion with an acute kidney injury (AKI) diagnosis defined as any increased serum creatinine (sCr) level ≥0.3 mg/dL (or 26.5 µmol/L) from presurgery baseline within 48±4 hours of the end of surgery. The primary safety endpoints are the proportion of patients with any treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to study RBC transfusion through 28 days, and the proportion of patients with treatment-emergent antibodies with confirmed specificity to pathogen reduced RBCs through 75 days after the last study transfusion. With ≥292 evaluable, transfused patients (>146 per arm), the study has 80% power to demonstrate non-inferiority, defined as a Test group AKI incidence increase of no more than 50% of the Control group rate, assuming a Control incidence of 30%. Discussion RBCs are transfused to prevent tissue hypoxia caused by surgery-induced bleeding and anemia. AKI is a sensitive indicator of renal hypoxia and a novel endpoint for assessing RBC efficacy. The ReCePI study is intended to demonstrate the non-inferiority of pathogen reduced RBCs to conventional RBCs in the support of renal tissue oxygenation due to acute anemia and to characterize the incidence of treatment-related antibodies to RBC.

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.