Gammon, Richard R.

Abstract Background and Objectives Artificial intelligence (AI) has been gaining increasing interest in healthcare. During the 2024 International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) Congress, the Clinical Transfusion Working Party (CTWP) conducted a session to explore the exciting intersection of AI in transfusion medicine (TM) practice, education and research. We report here the potential applications and the session outcome. Materials and Methods A pre‐workshop survey explored the participants' demographics and areas of use of AI and whether they have had any AI‐specific training or education. The workshop included presentations on the regulatory aspects of AI use and its application in TM practice, education and research. These were followed by round‐table discussions to explore participants' experience and concerns. Results The workshop had 72 attendees, with 38% falling in the 36–45‐year age group. A total of 70% indicated the use of AI, but only 12% reported having specific training or education. Participants expressed interest in different potential applications but also shared concerns on over‐reliance, potential loss of skills, the accuracy of provided information and content plagiarism. Conclusion The findings of the workshop highlight the need for training, educational resources, standards and regulatory frameworks to guide the use of AI tools in the field of TM.

Introduction: Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is a lifesaving intervention with a low but persistent risk of transfusion-transmitted infection. Amustaline/glutathione RBC pathogen-reduction (PR) technology is designed to proactively inactivate a broad spectrum of viruses, bacteria, protozoa and leukocytes by chemically crosslinking nucleic acids and preventing replication and transcription. The Red Cell Pathogen Inactivation (ReCePI) trial was a Phase III, double-blinded, randomized non-inferiority study comparing PR and conventional RBCs for the support of acute anemia. Methods/Study Design: Complex cardiac or thoracic-aorta surgery patients received conventional (Control) or PR RBCs (Test) during and for 7 days after surgery. The protocol was conducted with ethics committee approval at all participating centers and written informed consent from all participants. Hemoglobin levels, blood utilization and serum creatinine were assessed as indicators of efficacy and oxygenation of tissues (Karkouti et al. Br J Anaesth. 2012; 109 Suppl 1: i29-i38). The primary endpoint was the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) measured as change in serum creatinine from baseline within 48 hours of surgery, a predictor of adverse postoperative outcomes including mortality by Day 30 post-surgery (Lassnig et al. Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 1597-1605). Secondary endpoints included AKI occurring up to 7 days post-surgery (KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for AKI, Kidney Inter, Suppl. 2012;2:1-138); death or the need for renal replacement therapy by 30 days post-surgery; PR RBC-specific antibodies; and death by day 75 post-surgery. With >292 subjects enrolled, the study had 80% power to demonstrate non-inferiority, assuming an AKI incidence of 30% with conventional RBCs and a non-inferiority margin of half the conventional RBC rate. Under these circumstances, an absolute treatment increase of 5% in the AKI rate in the PR RBC arm would fail the non-inferiority test. This work was supported by a contract with the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (HHS010020160009c) with Cerus Corporation. Results: Five-hundred and eighty-one subjects were randomized and 321 (55%) transfused in 18 US hospitals. In the modified intent-to-treat analysis subjects receiving Test and Control RBCs had similar median [IQR] total blood loss (1500 [940-2475] mL Test, 1733 [1060-2880] mL Control, p=0.310) and comparable median hemoglobin levels at baseline and immediately post-surgery (9.8 [8.9-10.9] g/dL Test, 9.6 [8.6-10.6] g/dL Control, p=0.157) and for 7 days after surgery, The PR RBC arm was transfused with fewer RBCs, measured as total RBC Hb transfused over 7-days (169.0 [102.0-240.0] g Hb PR arm, 188.0 [126.0-295.0] g Hb, conventional RBC arm, p=0.008). The incidence of AKI was 29.3% (46/157) for Test and 28.0% (45/161) for Control. The treatment difference was 0.74% (95% CI -8.9, 10.4%, non-inferiority margin 14.0%, p=0.001 for non-inferiority). Non-inferiority was also achieved by the per protocol analysis. Average mean change in serum creatinine within 48 hours of surgery was comparable (Test 0.020, Control 0.23 mg/dL, P=0.515). Adverse events, serious adverse events and deaths on study were not different. Five of 159 (3.1%) PR RBC recipients developed low titer PR RBC-specific antibodies without clinical signs of hemolysis. Flow cytometry analysis revealed persistent circulating PR RBCs with uniform antigen loss (modulation). Low level human IgG antibody binding was demonstrated in 3 of 5 subjects. Conclusions: PR RBCs showed equivalent hemoglobin support for acute bleeding patients undergoing cardiac or thoracic-aorta surgery while using less transfused total RBC Hb over 7 days. The incidence of AKI in patients transfused with PR RBCs was non-inferior to that observed with conventional RBCs, indicative of effective tissue oxygenation. Treatment-related antibodies to PR-RBC were observed only in Test subjects, the antibodies were low titer, transient, without clinical hemolysis, and persistent circulating PR RBCs were detected with modulated low level acridine antigen expression (www.clinicaltrials.gov #NCT03459287).

Context.— The blood bank is often consulted for transfusion support of patients with suspected platelet transfusion refractoriness (PTR). The workup is complex because testing includes specialized assays that are uncommonly ordered with limited availability. Add to this the variety of possible products—crossmatched platelets, human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–matched platelets, HLA antigen–negative platelets—and the approach to PTR can be overwhelming. Moreover, most literature on the subject is published in transfusion medicine journals aimed at transfusion medicine physicians and blood bank specialists in academic settings. Resources tailored to community hospital blood banks are lacking. Objective.— To provide pathologists who may not have subspecialized training in transfusion medicine and who direct blood bank algorithmic workflows based on clinical scenario and test availability to provide appropriate transfusion support for patients with PTR. Data Sources.— This review is a comprehensive overview of terminology, HLA testing procedures, interpretations, and practical recommendations for managing PTR in various scenarios based on expert opinion as well as relevant medical literature published from 2007 to 2022. Conclusions.— Consultation on PTR is complicated and encompasses many clinical and laboratory aspects. The lack of guidelines derived from high-quality prospective studies poses challenges in the workup and management of PTR. Hindering the process further are limited test availability, unfamiliarity with the technical assays, and the various specialized platelet products. The clinical evaluation algorithm presented herein along with the workflow pathways offer pathologists user-friendly and best-practice guidelines with different options based on the clinical scenario and the tests available.

Abstract Background Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is a critical supportive therapy in cardiovascular surgery (CVS). Donor selection and testing have reduced the risk of transfusion-transmitted infections; however, risks remain from bacteria, emerging viruses, pathogens for which testing is not performed and from residual donor leukocytes. Amustaline (S-303)/glutathione (GSH) treatment pathogen reduction technology is designed to inactivate a broad spectrum of infectious agents and leucocytes in RBC concentrates. The ReCePI study is a Phase 3 clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pathogen reduced RBCs transfused for acute anemia in CVS compared to conventional RBCs, and to assess the clinical significance of treatment-emergent RBC antibodies. Methods ReCePI is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, active-controlled, paralleldesign, non-inferiority study. Eligible subjects will be randomized up to 7 days before surgery to receive either leukoreduced Test (pathogen reduced) or Control (conventional) RBCs from surgery up to Day 7 post-surgery. The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of patients transfused with at least one study transfusion with an acute kidney injury (AKI) diagnosis defined as any increased serum creatinine (sCr) level ≥0.3 mg/dL (or 26.5 µmol/L) from presurgery baseline within 48±4 hours of the end of surgery. The primary safety endpoints are the proportion of patients with any treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to study RBC transfusion through 28 days, and the proportion of patients with treatment-emergent antibodies with confirmed specificity to pathogen reduced RBCs through 75 days after the last study transfusion. With ≥292 evaluable, transfused patients (>146 per arm), the study has 80% power to demonstrate non-inferiority, defined as a Test group AKI incidence increase of no more than 50% of the Control group rate, assuming a Control incidence of 30%. Discussion RBCs are transfused to prevent tissue hypoxia caused by surgery-induced bleeding and anemia. AKI is a sensitive indicator of renal hypoxia and a novel endpoint for assessing RBC efficacy. The ReCePI study is intended to demonstrate the non-inferiority of pathogen reduced RBCs to conventional RBCs in the support of renal tissue oxygenation due to acute anemia and to characterize the incidence of treatment-related antibodies to RBC.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough the safety and therapeutic efficacy of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been extensively evaluated, the safety of CCP donation has not been explored in a multi‐institutional context.Study design and methodsNine blood collection organizations (BCOs) participated in a multi‐institutional donor hemovigilance effort to assess the safety of CCP donation. Donor adverse events (DAEs) were defined according to the Standard for Surveillance of Complications Related to Blood Donation, and severity was assessed using the severity grading tool. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine attributes associated with DAE severity.ResultsThe overall DAE rate was 37.7 per 1000 donations. Repeat apheresis and apheresis‐naïve donors experienced adverse event rates of 19.9 and 49.8 per 1000 donations, respectively. Female donors contributed 51.9% of CCP donations with a DAE rate of 49.4 per 1000 donations. The DAE rate for male donors was 27.4 per 1000 donations. Vasovagal reactions accounted for over half of all reported DAEs (51.1%). After adjustment, volume of CCP donated was associated with vasovagal reaction severity (odds ratio [OR] 6.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5–17.1). Donor age and donation history were also associated with DAE severity. Considerable differences in DAE types and rates were observed across the participating BCOs despite the use of standardized hemovigilance definitions.ConclusionThe safety of CCP donation appears comparable to that of conventional apheresis plasma donation with similar associated risk factors for DAE types and severity.

BACKGROUND The Food and Drug Administration's requirements for “Blood and Blood Components Intended for Transfusion or Further Manufacturing Use” (Final Rule) effective May 2016 changed eligibility criteria for blood donors. A multivariate analysis was performed to measure its impact on donor deferral rates. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Four blood centers submitted data for similar 6‐month periods before and after implementation of the Final Rule. Data included presenting donors, units collected, deferrals, intended products from deferred donors, deferral reasons, presenting donor demographics, donor hemoglobin (Hgb), hematocrit (HCT), pulse, blood pressure (BP), temperature, and other reasons for deferral. Data were aggregated and periods compared. RESULTS After Final Rule implementation, successful donations decreased by 1.3% (83.1%‐81.9%), despite a 0.2% increase in presenting donors. The rate of Hgb/HCT, pulse, and deferrals increased, while deferrals for other reasons decreased. Male Hgb/HCT deferral rates increased 1.2% (4213 total). Black male donors' Hgb/HCT deferral rate increased (2.7%‐5.2%) but was counterbalanced by an overall 3.7% decrease in black female Hgb/HCT deferrals. While Hgb/HCT deferrals of black donors remained stable overall (17.0% vs. 16.2%), this trend was not observed by all centers. Deferrals for pulse increased (0.2%), as did BP deferrals (0.2%). CONCLUSION Although there was a small increase in presenting donors after implementation of the Final Rule, there was a decrease in successful donations. While it appeared that deferral in black donors was unchanged, this trend was not observed across all centers. Pulse and BP deferrals rose dissimilarly among centers, according to individual procedures.