Citations

Abstract Mesenchymal stem/progenitor cells (MSPCs) have immunomodulatory activity. We previously observed that osteoprogenitors and CD8+T cells are increased in the bone marrow (BM) of mice lacking the transcription factor Nmp4. Transcriptome analysis of MSPCs from Nmp4−/− and wild type (WT) mice revealed significant changes in genes related to innate immune responses, including reduced expression of Tlr3 and Mda5 in the null MSPCs. Loss of Nmp4 increased mRNA translation, ribosomal biogenesis, and Gadd34 expression in MSPCs; collectively, these processes likely promote the unfolded protein response (UPR), expanding the processing capacity of the endoplasmic reticulum. Therefore, we hypothesized that disabling Nmp4 would improve innate immune cell function. To test this, Nmp4−/− mice (C57BL6) were infected intranasally with influenza A/PR8 (H1N1; 150pfu). Despite having similar virus load in the lung, H1N1-infected Nmp4−/− mice lost less body weight than WT mice post infection and had improved survival. Infected Nmp4−/− mice had fewer infiltrating neutrophils (PMNs; CD11b+/Ly6G+) and monocytes (CD11b+/SiglecFNeg/Ly6GNeg/Ly6C+) in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) but more BAL macrophages (CD11c+/SiglecF+); CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were not different between genotypes. Ex vivo, Nmp4-deficiency did not alter the differentiation of BM marrow-derived macrophages; however, Chil3/Ym1 and Alox15 mRNA expression was reduced in Nmp4−/− macrophages polarized with IL-4/IL-13, suggesting cell-autonomous regulation of M2 macrophage activation by Nmp4. Our data point to Nmp4 as a novel regulator of innate immunity and influenza response in mice.

AbstractBackgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated low first‐time donor return rates (DRR) following catastrophic events. Little is known, however, about the influence of demographic factors on the DRR of first‐time donors during the COVID‐19 pandemic, including the unique motivation of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors as compared to non‐CCP donors.Study Design and MethodsThirteen blood collection organizations submitted deidentified data from first‐time CCP and non‐CCP donors returning for regular (non‐CCP) donations during the pandemic. DRR was calculated as frequencies. Demographic factors associated with returning donors: race/ethnicity, gender, and generation (Gen Z: 19–24, Millennial: 25–40, Gen X: 41–56, and Boomer: ≥57 years old), within the CCP and non‐CCP first‐time cohorts were compared using chi‐square test at p < .05 statistical significance.ResultsFrom March 2020 through December 2021, there were a total of 44,274 first‐time CCP and 980,201 first‐time non‐CCP donors. DRR were 14.6% (range 11.9%–43.3%) and 46.6% (range 10.0%–76.9%) for CCP and non‐CCP cohorts, respectively. Age over 40 years (Gen X and Boomers), female gender, and White race were each associated with higher return in both donor cohorts (p < .001). For the non‐CCP return donor cohort, the Millennial and Boomers were comparable.ConclusionThe findings demonstrate differences in returning donor trends between the two donor cohorts. The motivation of a first‐time CCP donor may be different than that of a non‐CCP donor. Further study to improve first‐time donor engagement would be worthwhile to expand the donor base with a focus on blood donor diversity emphasizing engagement of underrepresented minorities and younger donors.

72 Background: The integration of biopsychosocial screening programs (BSP) has been promoted as a way by which to identify unmet needs and to provide tailored treatments to patients. Studies have reported mixed outcomes regarding the impact of such services on hospital admissions during cancer treatment. This study sought to evaluate the effect of a BSP on hospital admissions and length of stay among a large, heterogenous sample of patients diagnosed with cancer (March 2020 to December 2021). Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients diagnosed with cancer receiving treatment at a single institution located in the capital of Brazil. We assessed patients’ characteristics via chart review (e.g., age, sex, histology, hospital admission, length of hospitalization). In addition, as per the BSP protocol, patients were assessed via standardized self-report questionnaires (Distress Thermometer, FACT-G, Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment), and appropriate interventions are provided. This program was offered at no cost to all patients and engagement was voluntary. We compared the number of hospital admissions and length of stay between groups (patients who participated in the BSP vs. those who did not). Mixed linear models adjusted for selected characteristics (age, type of cancer and disease stage) were assessed. Results: A total of 1014 patients were included in this analysis. From the total sample, 84% participated in the BSP and 20% were hospitalized for an average of 9 days (ranging from 1-80 days). Mostly patients were female (63%), median age was 63 years old. Breast cancer (26%), hematological (18%), and gastrointestinal cancer (14%) were the most common types of cancer, and the majority had advanced disease (stage III-IV; 67%). Compared to those who engaged in the BSP, patient’s characteristics were well balanced, however, the proportion of patients hospitalized during their cancer treatment was higher among patients who did not participate in the BSP (27% vs 8%: P = 0.001), as was the length of hospitalization spent more days in the hospital than patients who has participated in the BSP (M = 9.5 days vs M = 4.2 days; P = 0.001). Conclusions: Our findings suggest the benefit of a BSP in reducing hospitalizations and length of stay among patients with cancer. An integrated model of care may assist in targeting patient’s unmet needs and may positively impact clinical and hospital-based outcomes. This is the first study to evaluate the effects of a BSP among a Brazilian population using real world data.

AbstractConvalescent plasma, collected from donors who have recovered from a pathogen of interest, has been used to treat infectious diseases, particularly in times of outbreak, when alternative therapies were unavailable. The COVID‐19 pandemic revived interest in the use of convalescent plasma. Large observational studies and clinical trials that were executed during the pandemic provided insight into how to use convalescent plasma, whereby high levels of antibodies against the pathogen of interest and administration early within the time course of the disease are critical for optimal therapeutic effect. Several studies have shown outpatient administration of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to be both safe and effective, preventing clinical progression in patients when administered within the first week of COVID‐19. The United States Food and Drug Administration expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow for the administration of CCP in an outpatient setting in December 2021, at least for immunocompromised patients or those on immunosuppressive therapy. Outpatient transfusion of CCP and infusion of monoclonal antibody therapies for a highly transmissible infectious disease introduces nuanced challenges related to infection prevention. Drawing on our experiences with the clinical and research use of CCP, we describe the logistical considerations and workflow spanning procurement of qualified products, infrastructure, staffing, transfusion, and associated management of adverse events. The purpose of this description is to facilitate the efforts of others intent on establishing outpatient transfusion programs for CCP and other antibody‐based therapies.

Background The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. Methods In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4–5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. Results Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. Conclusions Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

Abstract Background The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. Methods In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4–5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with &gt;50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. Results Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. Conclusions Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

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.