Fasano, Ross M.

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.