Cohn, Claudia S

Abstract Background Cryoprecipitated antihemophiliac factor (cryo) is primarily used to replenish fibrinogen in acquired coagulopathy. Little has been reported about its usage patterns within hospitals with respect to patient population, frequency of use, and dosing. Study design and methods Cryo production and usage data were collected over 5 years from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2021, from nationally based blood collection centers in the United States (U.S. n = 2) and Canada ( n = 2) and from eight large academic hospitals, respectively. Usage data for a similar product, purified fibrinogen concentrate were also collected from four hospitals. Results Two U.S. blood collectors reported increases in cryo production normalized to total whole blood collections from 17.4% in 2016 to 22.3% in 2021 and from 16.4% in 2016 to 20.2% in 2021. In contrast, in Canada cryo manufacturing increased slightly in one region (11.3%–12.9%) and decreased (8.0%–2.0%) in the other. Cryo utilization, defined as numbers of patients treated normalized to the inpatient census, and dose administered per patient did not consistently increase and differed significantly between hospitals participating in the study ( p < .0001). Likewise, the departments that most frequently transfused cryo varied between hospitals. Similarly, variations in practice were observed for fibrinogen concentrate usage. Conclusion While much of Canada and Europe have moved towards using fibrinogen concentrate, two large U.S. collectors have increased cryo distribution. The lack of standardization and variability in the clinical practice regarding the use of cryo and fibrinogen concentrate reported by study sites may be attributable to practitioner preference, availability, and/or cost rather than adherence to published evidence or guidelines.

Abstract Background Rho(D) immune globulin (RhIg) is used to reduce RhD alloimmunization in pregnancy. This study describes potential causes for RhD alloimmunization after the development and implementation of RhIg. Study Design and Methods This retrospective descriptive study investigated RhD‐negative patients born in 1965–2005 with anti‐D newly identified during 2018–2022. Transfusion, pregnancy, intravenous drug abuse, and transplantation were considered potential alloimmunization sources. Results There were 1200 study patients (852 females; 348 males) at 30 institutions in 5 countries (USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Brazil). Most patients had a single potential source of alloimmunization identified (857/1200, 71%), most commonly pregnancy among females (537/852, 63%) and transfusion among males (180/348, 52%). When multiple potential sources were included, males were more likely than females to have a history of transfusion (235/348 [68%] vs. 149/852 [17%], p < .0001) and confirmed or suspected intravenous drug abuse (100/348 [29%] vs. 138/852 [16%], p < .0001). Among females with a history of pregnancy, 119/718 (17%) had healthcare access issues, 120/718 (17%) had pregnancy in a country where they may not have received RhIg, and 21/718 (3%) refused RhIg. Among patients with a history of transfusion, males were more likely than females to have received RhD‐positive red blood cells or whole blood (143/235 [61%] vs. 30/149 [20%], p < .0001) and/or platelets (84/235 [36%] vs. 19/149 [13%], p < .0001). Discussion Pregnancy was the most frequently identified potential source of RhD alloimmunization among females. Transfusion was most frequent in males. Intravenous drug abuse as a common potential source among patients with RhD alloimmunization merits further study.

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.

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.

AbstractBackgroundThe SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic disrupted hospital operations, affected the blood supply, and challenged the health care system to develop new therapeutic options, including convalescent plasma (CCP). The aim of this study is to describe and analyze blood supply fluctuations and the use of convalescent plasma in 2020.MethodsAABB distributed a weekly and biweekly questionnaire through email to hospital‐based members (HBM).ResultsThe survey was sent to 887 HBM with 479 unique respondents, most of the hospitals served pediatric and adult patients, and all states of the country participated, except Idaho and Vermont. Fifty four percent of HBM reported increased wastage in the early phase of the pandemic (May), which decreased to 4% by the end of June and throughout the rest of the year. The majority of HBM reported receiving alerts from their blood suppliers reporting blood shortages throughout the year. During March and April, only 12% of HBM were performing elective surgical procedures. The top reasons to delay procedures were: bed availability (28%); COVID‐19 caseload (23%; and blood availability (19%). By mid‐April, 42% HBM had transfused CCP and reported >24 h delay in getting the units; the vast majority obtained CCP using the Expanded Access Protocol, and later, the Emergency Use Authorization. HBM consistently prioritized the most severe patients to receive CCP, but the proportion of severely ill recipients fell from 52% to 37% between May and October, with an increase from 5% to 21% of HBM providing CCP transfusion early in the course of the disease.DiscussionBlood utilization and availability fluctuated during the pandemic. The fluctuations appeared to be related to the number of COVID‐19 in the community. The use and regulatory landscape of CCP rapidly evolved over the first 8 months of the pandemic.

BACKGROUNDSingle antigen bead (SAB) assays are used to identify human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies in patients with platelet refractoriness due to HLA Class I alloimmunization. Some laboratories use serum pretreatment regimens to eliminate interference from immunoglobulin M antibodies and complement. These modifications may contribute to interlaboratory variability, which is a recognized problem with the SAB assay.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSFive patientsʼ sera were overnight shipped to 12 laboratories in the United States and internationally. Recipients used their labʼs SAB procedure to identify HLA Class I antibodies. The resultant mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) data were compared by instrumentation, bead lot, and pretreatment regimens. Laboratory‐specific cutoffs for positive antibodies were applied to the results.RESULTSInterlaboratory variability for MFI values appears to be associated with different pretreatment regimens. The coefficient of variation (CV) of MFI from samples pretreated with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, dithiothreitol, or heat inactivation (EDHI) were similar, ranging from 14% to 56% (mean, 22%). For samples with no pretreatment, the CVs were significantly higher than EDHI‐treated samples, ranging from 25% to 74% (mean, 39%; 95% confidence interval, 12.10‐21.90; p < 0.0001). An intralaboratory comparison of pretreatment regimens confirmed these findings. Some positive antibody specificities present in EDHI‐treated samples were negative in corresponding samples with no pretreatment when laboratory‐specific cutoffs for positive antibodies were applied.CONCLUSIONOur results show that greater interlaboratory precision can be achieved when samples are pretreated with EDHI as opposed to no pretreatment, likely because these pretreatments eliminate interference from inhibitors. Inhibitors may mask antibodies, leading to missed (or uncalled) specificities when no pretreatment is used.