De Goey, Steven R

BACKGROUND Platelet transfusion–refractoriness is a challenging and expensive clinical scenario seen most often in patients with hematologic malignancies. Although the majority of platelet transfusion–refractory cases are due to nonimmune causes, a significant minority are caused by alloimmunization against Class I human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) or human platelet antigens (HPAs). Such platelet transfusion–refractory patients can be effectively managed with appropriate antigen‐negative products. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Our institution has developed a diagnostic and management algorithm for the platelet transfusion–refractory patient with an early focus on identifying those cases caused by immune‐mediated factors. Using physical platelet cross‐matches to initially classify platelet transfusion–refractory patients as immune‐mediated or not, cross‐match–compatible inventory is then provided to immune‐mediated patients, whereas subsequent HLA (with or without HPA) testing is performed. RESULTS Our blood donor program performs Class I HLA typing of all repeat platelet donors to facilitate the identification of antigen‐negative platelet units (virtual cross‐matching) as well as the recruitment of HLA‐matched donors. The platelet transfusion–refractoriness algorithm realizes an initial net cost savings once two apheresis platelets are saved from use for each newly identified, immune‐mediated platelet transfusion–refractory patient. CONCLUSION An algorithm utilizing physical platelet cross‐matches, Class I HLA and HPA antibody testing, and upfront Class I HLA typing of platelet donors leads to overall resource savings and improved clinical management for platelet transfusion–refractory patients.

AbstractObjectiveHLA‐DPB1 matching may impact allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) outcomes; however, this locus is not in linkage disequilibrium with the remainder of the HLA genes. After classifying HLA‐DPB1 mismatches based on T‐cell epitope, avoiding non‐permissive mismatches may impact survival. We tested this hypothesis at a single academic institution.MethodsRetrospective HLA‐DPB1 genotyping was performed on 153 adult patients who underwent ASCT and unrelated donors matched for HLA‐A, B, C, DRB1, and DQB1 loci (10/10). Using the ImMunoGeneTics/HLA T‐cell epitope matching algorithm, mismatch status was classified as permissive or non‐permissive.ResultsOf 153 donor‐recipient pairs, 22 (14.4%) were HLA‐DPB1 matches, 64 (42.8%) permissive mismatches, and 67 (43.8%) non‐permissive mismatches. DPB1 mismatch increased risk of chronic graft‐versus‐host disease (cGVHD; RR 2.89 [1.19‐9.53], P=.016) compared with DPB1‐matched transplants, but there were no differences in overall mortality, risk of relapse, or acute GVHD (aGVHD). Combining matches and permissive mismatches and comparing to non‐permissive mismatches, there was no significant difference in overall survival or relapse; however, patients receiving non‐permissive mismatched transplants experienced greater risk of aGVHD overall and severe aGVHD (RR 1.66 [1.13‐2.44], P=.010 and RR 1.97 [1.10‐3.59], P=.024, respectively).ConclusionIn this single‐center study, HLA‐DPB1 matching influenced outcomes of patients undergoing ASCT for hematologic malignancy.