Nizzi, Frank

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.

Context.— Complexity of ordering and transfusing blood is particularly evident in the pediatric population. Simplification, clarification, and standardization of blood orders can decrease complexity and improve patient safety. Objective.— To improve patient safety by optimizing electronic ordering of blood components in pediatrics through a collaborative process improvement initiative. Design.— A multidisciplinary working group, formed as part of a value stream analysis to improve transfusion safety at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta (Atlanta, Georgia), focused on decreasing variability and providing clarity when ordering, preparing, and transfusing blood using the electronic health record. Through benchmarking with other pediatric institutions and a collaborative design process with multiple local stakeholders, an extensive redesign in the existing orders and order sets occurred. Metrics were collected to determine if a change was an improvement. Results.— Nurse and laboratory informaticists, a pathology informaticist, and a transfusion medicine specialist built the new orders based on the design. The new orders focused on the following changes: standardization, introduction of logic, naming conventions, clarifying definitions, adding calculations, improving transparency of history and laboratory data, removing aliquots, clarifying communication, and implementing additional modules to inform the provider of necessary information about the patient. Metrics included a decrease in the number of orders changed within an hour, decreased calls from the blood bank to the provider to clarify the order, and an absence of overtransfusions and transfusion-related serious safety events for a year following implementation. Conclusions.— This collaborative initiative, using standard process improvement tools, resulted in standardized blood orders improving transfusion safety.

AbstractBackgroundSirolimus is an immunosuppressive agent used in organ rejection prophylaxis in solid‐organ transplantation, graft‐vs‐host disease prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and as an immune modulator for patients with lymphangioleiomyomatosis and vascular malformations. Sirolimus has a narrow therapeutic index with potential severe side effects, including hypertension, hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and neurotoxicity.Case ReportWe report a case of a 19‐year‐old woman with severe sickle cell disease who underwent a matched unrelated hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, whose course was complicated by sirolimus toxicity. This case was challenging because sirolimus has no specific antidote, is largely bound to red blood cells (RBCs), has a high distribution volume, and cannot be removed by dialysis or plasmapheresis.ResultDue to the concern for toxicity, we looked into possibilities for rapid sirolimus clearance using automated RBC exchange. The treatment was effective in decreasing blood sirolimus levels within the therapeutic ranges.ConclusionThe use of RBC exchange is potentially safe and effective in the management of a case of sirolimus toxicity.

BACKGROUND After hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) is a known and fairly common complication. It is often refractory to conventional therapies including corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, splenectomy, and the more recently described use of monoclonal antibodies. The high morbidity associated with these severe persistent cases elucidates the gaps in alternative therapies available for treatment. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS We described the successful use of abatacept for severe refractory AIHA after HSCT in three patients. RESULTS Three pediatric patients with refractory AIHA after allogeneic stem cell transplantation were observed to be unresponsive to multitude immunosuppressive therapies, resulting in persistent transfusion dependency. Treatment with abatacept, a fusion protein that inhibits T‐cell activation by binding to CD80/CD86 on antigen‐presenting cells (APCs), thus blocking the required CD28 interaction between APCs and T cells, resulted in the resolution of hemolysis. CONCLUSION Abatacept may provide significant clinical benefit in the management of AIHA after HSCT.