Treml, Angela

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.

BACKGROUNDA prior practice survey revealed variations in the management of patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) and stressed the need for comprehensive guidelines. Here we discuss: 1) common indications for red blood cell exchange (RCE), 2) options for access, 3) how to prepare the red blood cells (RBCs) to be used for RCE, 4) target hemoglobin (Hb) and/or hematocrit (Hct) and HbS level, 5) RBC depletion/RCE, and 6) some complications that may ensue.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSFifteen physicians actively practicing apheresis from 14 institutions representing different areas within the United States discussed how they manage RCE for patients with SCD.RESULTSSimple transfusion is recommended to treat symptomatic anemia with Hb level of less than 9 g/dL. RCE is indicated to prevent or treat complications arising from the presence of HbS. The most important goals are reduction of HbS while also preventing hyperviscosity. The usual goals are a target HbS level of not more than 30% and Hct level of less than 30%.CONCLUSIONAlthough a consensus as to protocol details may not be possible, there are areas of agreement in the management of these patients, for example, that it is optimal to avoid hyperviscosity and iron overload, that a target Hb S level in the range of 30% is generally desirable, and that RCE as an acute treatment for pain crisis in the absence of other acute or chronic conditions is ordinarily discouraged.

We surveyed multiple apheresis centers represented by the authors for their clinical approach to the management of anticoagulation issues during therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE). We present the results of their practices and a review of the pertinent literature. As plasma is removed during TPE, replacement with all or partial non‐plasma‐containing fluids (eg, 5% albumin) may lead to significant changes in hemostasis. These changes are amplified in patients who are receiving anticoagulation. We discuss various anticoagulants as well as the monitoring and adjustment of anticoagulation before, during, and after TPE. No single guideline can be applied, but rather, patients must be monitored individually, taking into account their often complex clinical conditions and medication profiles.