Blood Banking

On March 31, soon after the Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of antibody-packed plasma from recovered patients with COVID-19, Marisa Leuzzi became the first donor at an American Red Cross center. She hoped it could help her aunt, Renee Bannister, who was failing after 3 weeks on a ventilator at Virtua Hospital in Voorhees, N.J.

It may have worked; 11 days after receiving the plasma, Ms. Bannister was weaned off the ventilator and she is now awake and speaking, said Red Cross spokesperson Stephanie Rendon.

This kind of anecdote is fueling demand for the therapy, which can be provided through an expanded access program led by the Mayo Clinic, backed by the FDA, and the plasma paid for by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. But while this program is collecting safety and outcomes data, it’s not a randomized, controlled trial.

Others, however, are pursuing that data. At least a dozen researchers are investigating the potential of plasma – both as a treatment and whether it could act as a stand-in for a vaccine until one is developed.

“One of the things I don’t want this to be is the flavor of the month,” Shmuel Shoham, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

Dr. Shoham, principal investigator for a study evaluating convalescent plasma to prevent the infection in high-risk individuals, said some clinicians, desperate for any treatment, have tried potential therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir without evidence of safety or efficacy in COVID-19.

The National Institutes of Health recently said something similar for convalescent plasma, that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19.

But plasma has promise, according to a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine’s Bloomberg Distinguished Professor, Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, in Baltimore, and Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. They lay out the case for convalescent plasma in an article published online March 13 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Passive antibody therapy, they wrote, has been used to stem polio, measles, mumps, and influenza, and more recently has shown some success against SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

“The special attraction of this modality of treatment is that, unlike vaccines or newly developed drugs, it could, in principle, be made available very rapidly,” said researchers with the National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project, which includes physicians and scientists from 57 institutions in 46 states. But where principle veers from reality is in availability of the plasma itself, and donors are in short supply.
 

Aiming to prevent infection

So far, the FDA has approved 12 plasma trials – including Dr. Shoham’s – and the NIH’s clinicaltrials.gov lists more than two dozen convalescent plasma studies in the United States and elsewhere.

Most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help those on a ventilator improve. Two others, one at Johns Hopkins and one at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in.

“A general principle of passive antibody therapy is that it is more effective when used for prophylaxis than for treatment of disease,” Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski wrote.

Stanford’s randomized, double-blind study will evaluate regular versus convalescent plasma in ED patients who are not sick enough to require hospitalization.

The Johns Hopkins trial, which aims to protect against infection in the first place, will begin at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and at Hopkins-affiliated hospitals throughout Maryland, Dr. Shoham said. He hopes it will expand nationwide eventually, and said that they expect to enroll the first patients soon.

To start, the prevention study will enroll only 150 patients, each of whom must have had close contact with someone who has COVID-19 within the previous 120 hours and be asymptomatic. The number of subjects is small, compared with the trial size of other potential therapies, and an issue, Shoham said, “that keeps me up at night.” But finding thousands of enrollees for plasma studies is hard, in part because it’s so difficult to recruit donors.

Participants will receive normal plasma (which will act as a placebo) or convalescent plasma.

The primary endpoint is cumulative incidence of COVID-19, defined as symptoms and a polymerase chain reaction–positive test; participants will be tracked for 90 days. Hospitals and health care workers could then decide if they want to use the therapy, he said.

The study will not answer whether participants will continue to have antibodies beyond the 90 days. Convalescent plasma is given as a rapid response to an emergent pathogen – a short-term boost of immunity rather than a long-term therapeutic.
 

What can we learn from expanded access?

Meanwhile, some 2,200 hospitals are participating in the expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide; more than 9,000 patients had received infusions at press time.

One participant is Northwell Health, a 23-hospital system that sprawls across the U.S. COVID epicenter: four of the five boroughs of New York City and Long Island.

Convalescent plasma is an in-demand therapy, said Christina Brennan, MD, vice president of clinical research at Northwell. “We get patients, family members, they say my family member is at X hospital – if it’s not being offered there, can you have them transferred?” she said in an interview.

When Northwell – through the New York Blood Bank – opened up donor registration, 800 people signed up in the first 24 hours, Dr. Brennan said. As of mid-May, 527 patients had received a transfusion.
 

Who’s the best donor and when should donation occur?

The Red Cross, hospitals, and independent blood banks are all soliciting donors, who can sign up at the Red Cross website. The FDA recommends that donors have a history of COVID-19 as confirmed by molecular or antibody testing, be symptom free for 14 days, have a negative follow-up molecular test, and be virus free at the time of collection. The FDA also suggests measuring a donor’s SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers, if available, with a recommendation of at least 1:160.

But questions remain, such as whether there is a theoretical risk for antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection with SARS-CoV-2. “Antibodies to one type of coronavirus could enhance infection to another viral strain,” of coronavirus, Dr. Casadevall wrote. ADE has been observed in both severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and MERS.

The other risk is that donors may still be shedding active virus. While the FDA suggests that donors are unlikely to still be infectious 14 days after infection, that is as of yet unproven. Both COVID-19 diagnostics and antibody tests have high rates of false negatives, which raises the specter that infection could be spread via the plasma donation.

Daniele Focosi, MD, PhD, from Pisa (Italy) University Hospital and colleagues raise that concern in a preprint review on convalescent plasma in COVID-19. “Although the recipient is already infected, theoretically transmission of more infectious particles could worsen clinical conditions,” they wrote, noting that “such a concern can be somewhat reduced by treatment with modern pathogen inactivation techniques.”

No evidence exists that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through blood, but “we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Shoham said in an interview. A reassuring point: Even those with severe infection do not have viral RNA in their blood, he said, adding, “We don’t think there’s going to be viral transmission of this particular virus with transfusion.”

For another highly infectious pathogen, the Ebola virus, the World Health Organization recommended in 2014 that potential plasma donors wait at least 28 days after infection.

It’s also not known how long SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist in the blood; longer viability could mean a longer donation window. Dr. Focosi noted that a previous Chinese study had shown that SARS-specific antibodies in people infected with the first SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, persisted for 2 years.

Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Shoham has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On March 31, soon after the Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of antibody-packed plasma from recovered patients with COVID-19, Marisa Leuzzi became the first donor at an American Red Cross center. She hoped it could help her aunt, Renee Bannister, who was failing after 3 weeks on a ventilator at Virtua Hospital in Voorhees, N.J.

It may have worked; 11 days after receiving the plasma, Ms. Bannister was weaned off the ventilator and she is now awake and speaking, said Red Cross spokesperson Stephanie Rendon.

This kind of anecdote is fueling demand for the therapy, which can be provided through an expanded access program led by the Mayo Clinic, backed by the FDA, and the plasma paid for by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. But while this program is collecting safety and outcomes data, it’s not a randomized, controlled trial.

Others, however, are pursuing that data. At least a dozen researchers are investigating the potential of plasma – both as a treatment and whether it could act as a stand-in for a vaccine until one is developed.

“One of the things I don’t want this to be is the flavor of the month,” Shmuel Shoham, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

Dr. Shoham, principal investigator for a study evaluating convalescent plasma to prevent the infection in high-risk individuals, said some clinicians, desperate for any treatment, have tried potential therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir without evidence of safety or efficacy in COVID-19.

The National Institutes of Health recently said something similar for convalescent plasma, that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19.

But plasma has promise, according to a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine’s Bloomberg Distinguished Professor, Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, in Baltimore, and Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. They lay out the case for convalescent plasma in an article published online March 13 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Passive antibody therapy, they wrote, has been used to stem polio, measles, mumps, and influenza, and more recently has shown some success against SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

“The special attraction of this modality of treatment is that, unlike vaccines or newly developed drugs, it could, in principle, be made available very rapidly,” said researchers with the National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project, which includes physicians and scientists from 57 institutions in 46 states. But where principle veers from reality is in availability of the plasma itself, and donors are in short supply.
 

Aiming to prevent infection

So far, the FDA has approved 12 plasma trials – including Dr. Shoham’s – and the NIH’s clinicaltrials.gov lists more than two dozen convalescent plasma studies in the United States and elsewhere.

Most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help those on a ventilator improve. Two others, one at Johns Hopkins and one at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in.

“A general principle of passive antibody therapy is that it is more effective when used for prophylaxis than for treatment of disease,” Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski wrote.

Stanford’s randomized, double-blind study will evaluate regular versus convalescent plasma in ED patients who are not sick enough to require hospitalization.

The Johns Hopkins trial, which aims to protect against infection in the first place, will begin at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and at Hopkins-affiliated hospitals throughout Maryland, Dr. Shoham said. He hopes it will expand nationwide eventually, and said that they expect to enroll the first patients soon.

To start, the prevention study will enroll only 150 patients, each of whom must have had close contact with someone who has COVID-19 within the previous 120 hours and be asymptomatic. The number of subjects is small, compared with the trial size of other potential therapies, and an issue, Shoham said, “that keeps me up at night.” But finding thousands of enrollees for plasma studies is hard, in part because it’s so difficult to recruit donors.

Participants will receive normal plasma (which will act as a placebo) or convalescent plasma.

The primary endpoint is cumulative incidence of COVID-19, defined as symptoms and a polymerase chain reaction–positive test; participants will be tracked for 90 days. Hospitals and health care workers could then decide if they want to use the therapy, he said.

The study will not answer whether participants will continue to have antibodies beyond the 90 days. Convalescent plasma is given as a rapid response to an emergent pathogen – a short-term boost of immunity rather than a long-term therapeutic.
 

What can we learn from expanded access?

Meanwhile, some 2,200 hospitals are participating in the expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide; more than 9,000 patients had received infusions at press time.

One participant is Northwell Health, a 23-hospital system that sprawls across the U.S. COVID epicenter: four of the five boroughs of New York City and Long Island.

Convalescent plasma is an in-demand therapy, said Christina Brennan, MD, vice president of clinical research at Northwell. “We get patients, family members, they say my family member is at X hospital – if it’s not being offered there, can you have them transferred?” she said in an interview.

When Northwell – through the New York Blood Bank – opened up donor registration, 800 people signed up in the first 24 hours, Dr. Brennan said. As of mid-May, 527 patients had received a transfusion.
 

Who’s the best donor and when should donation occur?

The Red Cross, hospitals, and independent blood banks are all soliciting donors, who can sign up at the Red Cross website. The FDA recommends that donors have a history of COVID-19 as confirmed by molecular or antibody testing, be symptom free for 14 days, have a negative follow-up molecular test, and be virus free at the time of collection. The FDA also suggests measuring a donor’s SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers, if available, with a recommendation of at least 1:160.

But questions remain, such as whether there is a theoretical risk for antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection with SARS-CoV-2. “Antibodies to one type of coronavirus could enhance infection to another viral strain,” of coronavirus, Dr. Casadevall wrote. ADE has been observed in both severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and MERS.

The other risk is that donors may still be shedding active virus. While the FDA suggests that donors are unlikely to still be infectious 14 days after infection, that is as of yet unproven. Both COVID-19 diagnostics and antibody tests have high rates of false negatives, which raises the specter that infection could be spread via the plasma donation.

Daniele Focosi, MD, PhD, from Pisa (Italy) University Hospital and colleagues raise that concern in a preprint review on convalescent plasma in COVID-19. “Although the recipient is already infected, theoretically transmission of more infectious particles could worsen clinical conditions,” they wrote, noting that “such a concern can be somewhat reduced by treatment with modern pathogen inactivation techniques.”

No evidence exists that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through blood, but “we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Shoham said in an interview. A reassuring point: Even those with severe infection do not have viral RNA in their blood, he said, adding, “We don’t think there’s going to be viral transmission of this particular virus with transfusion.”

For another highly infectious pathogen, the Ebola virus, the World Health Organization recommended in 2014 that potential plasma donors wait at least 28 days after infection.

It’s also not known how long SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist in the blood; longer viability could mean a longer donation window. Dr. Focosi noted that a previous Chinese study had shown that SARS-specific antibodies in people infected with the first SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, persisted for 2 years.

Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Shoham has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On March 31, soon after the Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of antibody-packed plasma from recovered patients with COVID-19, Marisa Leuzzi became the first donor at an American Red Cross center. She hoped it could help her aunt, Renee Bannister, who was failing after 3 weeks on a ventilator at Virtua Hospital in Voorhees, N.J.

It may have worked; 11 days after receiving the plasma, Ms. Bannister was weaned off the ventilator and she is now awake and speaking, said Red Cross spokesperson Stephanie Rendon.

This kind of anecdote is fueling demand for the therapy, which can be provided through an expanded access program led by the Mayo Clinic, backed by the FDA, and the plasma paid for by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. But while this program is collecting safety and outcomes data, it’s not a randomized, controlled trial.

Others, however, are pursuing that data. At least a dozen researchers are investigating the potential of plasma – both as a treatment and whether it could act as a stand-in for a vaccine until one is developed.

“One of the things I don’t want this to be is the flavor of the month,” Shmuel Shoham, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

Dr. Shoham, principal investigator for a study evaluating convalescent plasma to prevent the infection in high-risk individuals, said some clinicians, desperate for any treatment, have tried potential therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir without evidence of safety or efficacy in COVID-19.

The National Institutes of Health recently said something similar for convalescent plasma, that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19.

But plasma has promise, according to a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine’s Bloomberg Distinguished Professor, Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, in Baltimore, and Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. They lay out the case for convalescent plasma in an article published online March 13 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Passive antibody therapy, they wrote, has been used to stem polio, measles, mumps, and influenza, and more recently has shown some success against SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

“The special attraction of this modality of treatment is that, unlike vaccines or newly developed drugs, it could, in principle, be made available very rapidly,” said researchers with the National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project, which includes physicians and scientists from 57 institutions in 46 states. But where principle veers from reality is in availability of the plasma itself, and donors are in short supply.
 

Aiming to prevent infection

So far, the FDA has approved 12 plasma trials – including Dr. Shoham’s – and the NIH’s clinicaltrials.gov lists more than two dozen convalescent plasma studies in the United States and elsewhere.

Most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help those on a ventilator improve. Two others, one at Johns Hopkins and one at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in.

“A general principle of passive antibody therapy is that it is more effective when used for prophylaxis than for treatment of disease,” Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski wrote.

Stanford’s randomized, double-blind study will evaluate regular versus convalescent plasma in ED patients who are not sick enough to require hospitalization.

The Johns Hopkins trial, which aims to protect against infection in the first place, will begin at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and at Hopkins-affiliated hospitals throughout Maryland, Dr. Shoham said. He hopes it will expand nationwide eventually, and said that they expect to enroll the first patients soon.

To start, the prevention study will enroll only 150 patients, each of whom must have had close contact with someone who has COVID-19 within the previous 120 hours and be asymptomatic. The number of subjects is small, compared with the trial size of other potential therapies, and an issue, Shoham said, “that keeps me up at night.” But finding thousands of enrollees for plasma studies is hard, in part because it’s so difficult to recruit donors.

Participants will receive normal plasma (which will act as a placebo) or convalescent plasma.

The primary endpoint is cumulative incidence of COVID-19, defined as symptoms and a polymerase chain reaction–positive test; participants will be tracked for 90 days. Hospitals and health care workers could then decide if they want to use the therapy, he said.

The study will not answer whether participants will continue to have antibodies beyond the 90 days. Convalescent plasma is given as a rapid response to an emergent pathogen – a short-term boost of immunity rather than a long-term therapeutic.
 

What can we learn from expanded access?

Meanwhile, some 2,200 hospitals are participating in the expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide; more than 9,000 patients had received infusions at press time.

One participant is Northwell Health, a 23-hospital system that sprawls across the U.S. COVID epicenter: four of the five boroughs of New York City and Long Island.

Convalescent plasma is an in-demand therapy, said Christina Brennan, MD, vice president of clinical research at Northwell. “We get patients, family members, they say my family member is at X hospital – if it’s not being offered there, can you have them transferred?” she said in an interview.

When Northwell – through the New York Blood Bank – opened up donor registration, 800 people signed up in the first 24 hours, Dr. Brennan said. As of mid-May, 527 patients had received a transfusion.
 

Who’s the best donor and when should donation occur?

The Red Cross, hospitals, and independent blood banks are all soliciting donors, who can sign up at the Red Cross website. The FDA recommends that donors have a history of COVID-19 as confirmed by molecular or antibody testing, be symptom free for 14 days, have a negative follow-up molecular test, and be virus free at the time of collection. The FDA also suggests measuring a donor’s SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers, if available, with a recommendation of at least 1:160.

But questions remain, such as whether there is a theoretical risk for antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection with SARS-CoV-2. “Antibodies to one type of coronavirus could enhance infection to another viral strain,” of coronavirus, Dr. Casadevall wrote. ADE has been observed in both severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and MERS.

The other risk is that donors may still be shedding active virus. While the FDA suggests that donors are unlikely to still be infectious 14 days after infection, that is as of yet unproven. Both COVID-19 diagnostics and antibody tests have high rates of false negatives, which raises the specter that infection could be spread via the plasma donation.

Daniele Focosi, MD, PhD, from Pisa (Italy) University Hospital and colleagues raise that concern in a preprint review on convalescent plasma in COVID-19. “Although the recipient is already infected, theoretically transmission of more infectious particles could worsen clinical conditions,” they wrote, noting that “such a concern can be somewhat reduced by treatment with modern pathogen inactivation techniques.”

No evidence exists that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through blood, but “we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Shoham said in an interview. A reassuring point: Even those with severe infection do not have viral RNA in their blood, he said, adding, “We don’t think there’s going to be viral transmission of this particular virus with transfusion.”

For another highly infectious pathogen, the Ebola virus, the World Health Organization recommended in 2014 that potential plasma donors wait at least 28 days after infection.

It’s also not known how long SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist in the blood; longer viability could mean a longer donation window. Dr. Focosi noted that a previous Chinese study had shown that SARS-specific antibodies in people infected with the first SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, persisted for 2 years.

Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Shoham has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As an Episcopal priest, Father Robert Pace of Fort Worth, TX, is used to putting others first and reaching out to help. So when the pulmonologist who helped him through his ordeal with COVID-19 asked if he would like to donate blood to help other patients, he did not hesitate.

“I said, ‘Absolutely,’” Pace, 53, recalls. He says the idea was ‘very appealing.’ ” During his ordeal with COVID-19 in March, he had spent 3 days in the hospital, isolated and on IV fluids and oxygen. He was short of breath, with a heartbeat more rapid than usual.

Now, fully recovered, his blood was a precious commodity, antibody-rich and potentially life-saving.

As researchers scramble to test drugs to fight COVID-19, others are turning to an age-old treatment. They’re collecting the blood of survivors and giving it to patients in the throes of a severe infection, a treatment known as convalescent plasma therapy.

Doctors say the treatment will probably serve as a bridge until other drugs and a vaccine become available.

Although the FDA considers the treatment investigational, in late March, it eased access to it. Patients can get it as part of a clinical trial or through an expanded access program overseen by hospitals or universities. A doctor can also request permission to use the treatment for a single patient.

“It is considered an emergent, compassionate need,” says John Burk, MD, a pulmonologist at Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital, Fort Worth, who treated Pace. “It is a way to bring it to the bedside.” And the approval can happen quickly. Burk says he got one from the FDA just 20 minutes after requesting it for a severely ill patient.
 

How it works

The premise of how it works is “quite straightforward,” says Michael Joyner, MD, a professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. “When someone is recovered and no longer symptomatic, you can harvest those antibodies from their blood and give them to someone else, and hopefully alter the course of their disease.” Joyner is the principal investigator for the FDA’s national Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19, with 1,000 sites already signed on.

Convalescent therapy has been used to fight many other viruses, including Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the “bird” flu, H1N1 flu, and during the 1918 flu pandemic. Joyner says the strongest evidence for it comes from the 1950s, when it was used to treat a rodent-borne illness called Argentine hemorrhagic fever. Using convalescent plasma therapy for this infection reduced the death rate from nearly 43% before the treatment became common in the late 1950s to about 3% after it was widely used, one report found.

Data about convalescent therapy specifically for COVID-19 is limited. Chinese researchers reported on five critically ill patients, all on mechanical ventilation, treated with convalescent plasma after they had received antiviral and anti-inflammatory medicines. Three could leave the hospital after 51-55 days, and two were in stable condition in the hospital 37 days after the transfusion.

In another study of 10 severely ill patients, symptoms went away or improved in all 10 within 1 to 3 days after the transfusion. Two of the three on ventilators were weaned off and put on oxygen instead. None died.

Chinese researchers also reported three cases of patients with COVID-19 given the convalescent therapy who had a satisfactory recovery.

Researchers who reviewed the track record of convalescent therapy for other conditions recently concluded that the treatment doesn’t appear to cause severe side effects and it should be studied for COVID-19.

Although information on side effects specific to this treatment is evolving, Joyner says they are “very, very low.”

According to the FDA, allergic reactions can occur with plasma therapies. Because the treatment for COVID-19 is new, it is not known if patients might have other types of reactions.
 

Who can donate?

Blood bank officials and researchers running the convalescent plasma programs say the desire to help is widespread, and they’ve been deluged with offers to donate. But requirements are strict.

Donors must have evidence of COVID-19 infection, documented in a variety of ways, such as a diagnostic test by nasal swab or a blood test showing antibodies. And they must be symptom-free for 14 days, with test results, or 28 days without.

The treatment involves collecting plasma, not whole blood. Plasma, the liquid part of the blood, helps with clotting and supports immunity. During the collection, a donor’s blood is put through a machine that collects the plasma only and sends the red blood cells and platelets back to the donor.
 

Clinical trials

Requirements may be more stringent for donors joining a formal clinical trial rather than an expanded access program. For instance, potential donors in a randomized clinical trial underway at Stony Brook University must have higher antibody levels than required by the FDA, says study leader Elliott Bennett-Guerrero, MD, medical director of perioperative quality and patient safety and professor at the Renaissance School of Medicine.

He hopes to enroll up to 500 patients from the Long Island, NY, area. While clinical trials typically have a 50-50 split, with half of subjects getting a treatment and half a placebo, Bennett-Guerrero’s study will give 80% of patients the convalescent plasma and 20% standard plasma.

Julia Sabia Motley, 57, of Merrick, NY, is hoping to become a donor for the Stony Brook study. She and her husband, Sean Motley, 59, tested positive in late March. She has to pass one more test to join the trial. Her husband is also planning to try to donate. “I can finally do something,” Sabia Motley says. Her son is in the MD-PhD program at Stony Brook and told her about the study.
 

Many questions remain

The treatment for COVID-19 is in its infancy. Burk has given the convalescent plasma to two patients. One is now recovering at home, and the other is on a ventilator but improving, he says.

About 200 nationwide have received the therapy, Joyner says. He expects blood supplies to increase as more people are eligible to donate.

Questions remain about how effective the convalescent therapy will be. While experts know that the COVID-19 antibodies “can be helpful in fighting the virus, we don’t know how long the antibodies in the plasma would stay in place,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Nor do doctors know who the therapy might work best for, beyond people with a severe or life-threatening illness. When it’s been used for other infections, it’s generally given in early stages once someone has symptoms, Joyner says.

Joyner says he sees the treatment as a stopgap ‘’until concentrated antibodies are available.” Several drug companies are working to retrieve antibodies from donors and make concentrated antibody drugs.

“Typically we would think convalescent plasma might be a helpful bridge until therapies that are safe and effective and can be mass-produced are available, such as a vaccine or a drug,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Even so, he says that he doesn’t think he will have a problem attracting donors, and that he will have repeat donors eager to help.
 

More information for potential donors

Blood banks, the American Red Cross, and others involved in convalescent plasma therapy have posted information online for potential donors. People who don’t meet the qualifications for COVID-19 plasma donations are welcomed as regular blood donors if they meet those criteria

According to the FDA, a donation could potentially help save the lives of up to four COVID-19 patients.

Father Pace is already planning another visit to the blood bank. To pass the time last time, he says, he prayed for the person who would eventually get his blood.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As an Episcopal priest, Father Robert Pace of Fort Worth, TX, is used to putting others first and reaching out to help. So when the pulmonologist who helped him through his ordeal with COVID-19 asked if he would like to donate blood to help other patients, he did not hesitate.

“I said, ‘Absolutely,’” Pace, 53, recalls. He says the idea was ‘very appealing.’ ” During his ordeal with COVID-19 in March, he had spent 3 days in the hospital, isolated and on IV fluids and oxygen. He was short of breath, with a heartbeat more rapid than usual.

Now, fully recovered, his blood was a precious commodity, antibody-rich and potentially life-saving.

As researchers scramble to test drugs to fight COVID-19, others are turning to an age-old treatment. They’re collecting the blood of survivors and giving it to patients in the throes of a severe infection, a treatment known as convalescent plasma therapy.

Doctors say the treatment will probably serve as a bridge until other drugs and a vaccine become available.

Although the FDA considers the treatment investigational, in late March, it eased access to it. Patients can get it as part of a clinical trial or through an expanded access program overseen by hospitals or universities. A doctor can also request permission to use the treatment for a single patient.

“It is considered an emergent, compassionate need,” says John Burk, MD, a pulmonologist at Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital, Fort Worth, who treated Pace. “It is a way to bring it to the bedside.” And the approval can happen quickly. Burk says he got one from the FDA just 20 minutes after requesting it for a severely ill patient.
 

How it works

The premise of how it works is “quite straightforward,” says Michael Joyner, MD, a professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. “When someone is recovered and no longer symptomatic, you can harvest those antibodies from their blood and give them to someone else, and hopefully alter the course of their disease.” Joyner is the principal investigator for the FDA’s national Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19, with 1,000 sites already signed on.

Convalescent therapy has been used to fight many other viruses, including Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the “bird” flu, H1N1 flu, and during the 1918 flu pandemic. Joyner says the strongest evidence for it comes from the 1950s, when it was used to treat a rodent-borne illness called Argentine hemorrhagic fever. Using convalescent plasma therapy for this infection reduced the death rate from nearly 43% before the treatment became common in the late 1950s to about 3% after it was widely used, one report found.

Data about convalescent therapy specifically for COVID-19 is limited. Chinese researchers reported on five critically ill patients, all on mechanical ventilation, treated with convalescent plasma after they had received antiviral and anti-inflammatory medicines. Three could leave the hospital after 51-55 days, and two were in stable condition in the hospital 37 days after the transfusion.

In another study of 10 severely ill patients, symptoms went away or improved in all 10 within 1 to 3 days after the transfusion. Two of the three on ventilators were weaned off and put on oxygen instead. None died.

Chinese researchers also reported three cases of patients with COVID-19 given the convalescent therapy who had a satisfactory recovery.

Researchers who reviewed the track record of convalescent therapy for other conditions recently concluded that the treatment doesn’t appear to cause severe side effects and it should be studied for COVID-19.

Although information on side effects specific to this treatment is evolving, Joyner says they are “very, very low.”

According to the FDA, allergic reactions can occur with plasma therapies. Because the treatment for COVID-19 is new, it is not known if patients might have other types of reactions.
 

Who can donate?

Blood bank officials and researchers running the convalescent plasma programs say the desire to help is widespread, and they’ve been deluged with offers to donate. But requirements are strict.

Donors must have evidence of COVID-19 infection, documented in a variety of ways, such as a diagnostic test by nasal swab or a blood test showing antibodies. And they must be symptom-free for 14 days, with test results, or 28 days without.

The treatment involves collecting plasma, not whole blood. Plasma, the liquid part of the blood, helps with clotting and supports immunity. During the collection, a donor’s blood is put through a machine that collects the plasma only and sends the red blood cells and platelets back to the donor.
 

Clinical trials

Requirements may be more stringent for donors joining a formal clinical trial rather than an expanded access program. For instance, potential donors in a randomized clinical trial underway at Stony Brook University must have higher antibody levels than required by the FDA, says study leader Elliott Bennett-Guerrero, MD, medical director of perioperative quality and patient safety and professor at the Renaissance School of Medicine.

He hopes to enroll up to 500 patients from the Long Island, NY, area. While clinical trials typically have a 50-50 split, with half of subjects getting a treatment and half a placebo, Bennett-Guerrero’s study will give 80% of patients the convalescent plasma and 20% standard plasma.

Julia Sabia Motley, 57, of Merrick, NY, is hoping to become a donor for the Stony Brook study. She and her husband, Sean Motley, 59, tested positive in late March. She has to pass one more test to join the trial. Her husband is also planning to try to donate. “I can finally do something,” Sabia Motley says. Her son is in the MD-PhD program at Stony Brook and told her about the study.
 

Many questions remain

The treatment for COVID-19 is in its infancy. Burk has given the convalescent plasma to two patients. One is now recovering at home, and the other is on a ventilator but improving, he says.

About 200 nationwide have received the therapy, Joyner says. He expects blood supplies to increase as more people are eligible to donate.

Questions remain about how effective the convalescent therapy will be. While experts know that the COVID-19 antibodies “can be helpful in fighting the virus, we don’t know how long the antibodies in the plasma would stay in place,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Nor do doctors know who the therapy might work best for, beyond people with a severe or life-threatening illness. When it’s been used for other infections, it’s generally given in early stages once someone has symptoms, Joyner says.

Joyner says he sees the treatment as a stopgap ‘’until concentrated antibodies are available.” Several drug companies are working to retrieve antibodies from donors and make concentrated antibody drugs.

“Typically we would think convalescent plasma might be a helpful bridge until therapies that are safe and effective and can be mass-produced are available, such as a vaccine or a drug,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Even so, he says that he doesn’t think he will have a problem attracting donors, and that he will have repeat donors eager to help.
 

More information for potential donors

Blood banks, the American Red Cross, and others involved in convalescent plasma therapy have posted information online for potential donors. People who don’t meet the qualifications for COVID-19 plasma donations are welcomed as regular blood donors if they meet those criteria

According to the FDA, a donation could potentially help save the lives of up to four COVID-19 patients.

Father Pace is already planning another visit to the blood bank. To pass the time last time, he says, he prayed for the person who would eventually get his blood.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As an Episcopal priest, Father Robert Pace of Fort Worth, TX, is used to putting others first and reaching out to help. So when the pulmonologist who helped him through his ordeal with COVID-19 asked if he would like to donate blood to help other patients, he did not hesitate.

“I said, ‘Absolutely,’” Pace, 53, recalls. He says the idea was ‘very appealing.’ ” During his ordeal with COVID-19 in March, he had spent 3 days in the hospital, isolated and on IV fluids and oxygen. He was short of breath, with a heartbeat more rapid than usual.

Now, fully recovered, his blood was a precious commodity, antibody-rich and potentially life-saving.

As researchers scramble to test drugs to fight COVID-19, others are turning to an age-old treatment. They’re collecting the blood of survivors and giving it to patients in the throes of a severe infection, a treatment known as convalescent plasma therapy.

Doctors say the treatment will probably serve as a bridge until other drugs and a vaccine become available.

Although the FDA considers the treatment investigational, in late March, it eased access to it. Patients can get it as part of a clinical trial or through an expanded access program overseen by hospitals or universities. A doctor can also request permission to use the treatment for a single patient.

“It is considered an emergent, compassionate need,” says John Burk, MD, a pulmonologist at Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital, Fort Worth, who treated Pace. “It is a way to bring it to the bedside.” And the approval can happen quickly. Burk says he got one from the FDA just 20 minutes after requesting it for a severely ill patient.
 

How it works

The premise of how it works is “quite straightforward,” says Michael Joyner, MD, a professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. “When someone is recovered and no longer symptomatic, you can harvest those antibodies from their blood and give them to someone else, and hopefully alter the course of their disease.” Joyner is the principal investigator for the FDA’s national Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19, with 1,000 sites already signed on.

Convalescent therapy has been used to fight many other viruses, including Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the “bird” flu, H1N1 flu, and during the 1918 flu pandemic. Joyner says the strongest evidence for it comes from the 1950s, when it was used to treat a rodent-borne illness called Argentine hemorrhagic fever. Using convalescent plasma therapy for this infection reduced the death rate from nearly 43% before the treatment became common in the late 1950s to about 3% after it was widely used, one report found.

Data about convalescent therapy specifically for COVID-19 is limited. Chinese researchers reported on five critically ill patients, all on mechanical ventilation, treated with convalescent plasma after they had received antiviral and anti-inflammatory medicines. Three could leave the hospital after 51-55 days, and two were in stable condition in the hospital 37 days after the transfusion.

In another study of 10 severely ill patients, symptoms went away or improved in all 10 within 1 to 3 days after the transfusion. Two of the three on ventilators were weaned off and put on oxygen instead. None died.

Chinese researchers also reported three cases of patients with COVID-19 given the convalescent therapy who had a satisfactory recovery.

Researchers who reviewed the track record of convalescent therapy for other conditions recently concluded that the treatment doesn’t appear to cause severe side effects and it should be studied for COVID-19.

Although information on side effects specific to this treatment is evolving, Joyner says they are “very, very low.”

According to the FDA, allergic reactions can occur with plasma therapies. Because the treatment for COVID-19 is new, it is not known if patients might have other types of reactions.
 

Who can donate?

Blood bank officials and researchers running the convalescent plasma programs say the desire to help is widespread, and they’ve been deluged with offers to donate. But requirements are strict.

Donors must have evidence of COVID-19 infection, documented in a variety of ways, such as a diagnostic test by nasal swab or a blood test showing antibodies. And they must be symptom-free for 14 days, with test results, or 28 days without.

The treatment involves collecting plasma, not whole blood. Plasma, the liquid part of the blood, helps with clotting and supports immunity. During the collection, a donor’s blood is put through a machine that collects the plasma only and sends the red blood cells and platelets back to the donor.
 

Clinical trials

Requirements may be more stringent for donors joining a formal clinical trial rather than an expanded access program. For instance, potential donors in a randomized clinical trial underway at Stony Brook University must have higher antibody levels than required by the FDA, says study leader Elliott Bennett-Guerrero, MD, medical director of perioperative quality and patient safety and professor at the Renaissance School of Medicine.

He hopes to enroll up to 500 patients from the Long Island, NY, area. While clinical trials typically have a 50-50 split, with half of subjects getting a treatment and half a placebo, Bennett-Guerrero’s study will give 80% of patients the convalescent plasma and 20% standard plasma.

Julia Sabia Motley, 57, of Merrick, NY, is hoping to become a donor for the Stony Brook study. She and her husband, Sean Motley, 59, tested positive in late March. She has to pass one more test to join the trial. Her husband is also planning to try to donate. “I can finally do something,” Sabia Motley says. Her son is in the MD-PhD program at Stony Brook and told her about the study.
 

Many questions remain

The treatment for COVID-19 is in its infancy. Burk has given the convalescent plasma to two patients. One is now recovering at home, and the other is on a ventilator but improving, he says.

About 200 nationwide have received the therapy, Joyner says. He expects blood supplies to increase as more people are eligible to donate.

Questions remain about how effective the convalescent therapy will be. While experts know that the COVID-19 antibodies “can be helpful in fighting the virus, we don’t know how long the antibodies in the plasma would stay in place,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Nor do doctors know who the therapy might work best for, beyond people with a severe or life-threatening illness. When it’s been used for other infections, it’s generally given in early stages once someone has symptoms, Joyner says.

Joyner says he sees the treatment as a stopgap ‘’until concentrated antibodies are available.” Several drug companies are working to retrieve antibodies from donors and make concentrated antibody drugs.

“Typically we would think convalescent plasma might be a helpful bridge until therapies that are safe and effective and can be mass-produced are available, such as a vaccine or a drug,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Even so, he says that he doesn’t think he will have a problem attracting donors, and that he will have repeat donors eager to help.
 

More information for potential donors

Blood banks, the American Red Cross, and others involved in convalescent plasma therapy have posted information online for potential donors. People who don’t meet the qualifications for COVID-19 plasma donations are welcomed as regular blood donors if they meet those criteria

According to the FDA, a donation could potentially help save the lives of up to four COVID-19 patients.

Father Pace is already planning another visit to the blood bank. To pass the time last time, he says, he prayed for the person who would eventually get his blood.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Beth Shaz, MD, has started her term as president of AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks). Dr. Shaz, who will be president for the 2019-2020 term, was inaugurated during the 2019 AABB annual meeting. She succeeds Michael Murphy, MD, as president.

Dr. Shaz is the executive vice president and chief medical and scientific officer at the New York Blood Center in New York. She is a scientific member of Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion, an associate editor of Transfusion, and an editorial board member of Blood. She received her medical degree from University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

AABB also has a new president-elect, David Green. Mr. Green is president and chief executive officer of Vitalant, and he is based in Scottsdale, Ariz. Mr. Green previously led the Vitalant blood services division. Before that, he was president and chief executive officer of Mississippi Valley Regional Blood Center in Davenport, Iowa.

jensmith@mdedge.com

Beth Shaz, MD, has started her term as president of AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks). Dr. Shaz, who will be president for the 2019-2020 term, was inaugurated during the 2019 AABB annual meeting. She succeeds Michael Murphy, MD, as president.

Dr. Shaz is the executive vice president and chief medical and scientific officer at the New York Blood Center in New York. She is a scientific member of Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion, an associate editor of Transfusion, and an editorial board member of Blood. She received her medical degree from University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

AABB also has a new president-elect, David Green. Mr. Green is president and chief executive officer of Vitalant, and he is based in Scottsdale, Ariz. Mr. Green previously led the Vitalant blood services division. Before that, he was president and chief executive officer of Mississippi Valley Regional Blood Center in Davenport, Iowa.

jensmith@mdedge.com

Beth Shaz, MD, has started her term as president of AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks). Dr. Shaz, who will be president for the 2019-2020 term, was inaugurated during the 2019 AABB annual meeting. She succeeds Michael Murphy, MD, as president.

Dr. Shaz is the executive vice president and chief medical and scientific officer at the New York Blood Center in New York. She is a scientific member of Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion, an associate editor of Transfusion, and an editorial board member of Blood. She received her medical degree from University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

AABB also has a new president-elect, David Green. Mr. Green is president and chief executive officer of Vitalant, and he is based in Scottsdale, Ariz. Mr. Green previously led the Vitalant blood services division. Before that, he was president and chief executive officer of Mississippi Valley Regional Blood Center in Davenport, Iowa.

jensmith@mdedge.com

Fresher blood products are not necessarily better for patients with beta thalassemia, according to a pair of experts.

Red blood cell units stored less than 2 weeks are ideal, but older units are acceptable, and phenotype matching should take priority over unit age, advised Ashutosh Lal, MD, and Elliott Vichinsky, MD, both of UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.). They discussed these and other recommendations for transfusing patients with thalassemia during a webinar hosted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Indications for transfusion

Dr. Lal said patients with beta thalassemia major should be transfused if their hemoglobin is less than 7 g/dL on two occasions 2 weeks apart at baseline, or if their hemoglobin is greater than 7 g/dL and they have symptoms of anemia.

Patients with hemoglobin E beta thalassemia major should be transfused only if they have symptoms of anemia.

“The rationale is that, in beta thalassemia major, it is well established that, once the hemoglobin levels fall below 7 g/dL in young children, there is going to be massive bone marrow expansion, and there will be severe symptoms from anemia,” Dr. Lal said. “But the relationship of hemoglobin with symptoms in E beta thalassemia is less precise.”

The symptoms that should prompt transfusion include slowed growth, skeletal facial changes, splenomegaly, symptomatic or moderate to severe extramedullary hematopoiesis, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, pulmonary hypertension, osteoporotic fracture, and impaired quality of life in adults.

Dr. Lal said physicians should consider a 6-month trial of transfusions if the indication is unclear. He also noted that red cell antigen genotyping should be performed in all patients who may need transfusions.

Blood products

Dr. Lal said beta thalassemia patients should receive packed red blood cells that are leukoreduced prior to storage. The storage solution can be citrate-phosphate-dextrose solution with adenine (hematocrit 75%) or additive solution (hematocrit 60%).

“It’s important to note that the hematocrit of the two is quite different, and that needs to be inculcated into the decisions on how much volume to transfuse to younger children,” Dr. Lal said.

He noted that units should not be irradiated, as this damages the red cell membrane. And patients with severe allergic reactions should receive washed red blood cells because washing units removes residual donor plasma proteins.

Finally, units should be less than 2 weeks old if possible. Dr. Lal said using fresh units increases the survival of red blood cells post transfusion. However, he and Dr. Vichinsky both stressed that older units are acceptable, and phenotype matching is more important than the age of the unit.

Phenotype matching

Beta thalassemia patients who do not have preexisting alloantibodies or have transient autoantibodies should be matched to Rh and Kell, according to Dr. Lal.

Patients with preexisting alloantibodies should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, S, and the specific alloantibody. Patients with persistent autoantibodies should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, S, and any alloantibody.

Patients who start transfusions after 5 years of age should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, and S. Pregnant patients should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, and S, and units should be cytomegalovirus negative.

How to transfuse

Dr. Lal said the pretransfusion hemoglobin target is 10 g/dL, with a range of 9.5-10.5 g/dL in beta thalassemia major and a range of 9.0-10.5 g/dL for E beta thalassemia. A target of 10 g/dL is adequate for most individuals, Dr. Lal said, but he recommends individualization of hemoglobin target for patients with E beta thalassemia.

In general, patients should be transfused every 3 weeks, although 4 weeks is acceptable in younger children and those with hemoglobin E beta thalassemia.

As for the volume of a transfusion, children should receive 4 mL per kg of body weight, per gram increase in hemoglobin desired. Partial units can be used to avoid undertransfusion.

For adults, in general, those with pretransfusion hemoglobin less than 10 g/dL should receive three units, and those with pretransfusion hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or greater should receive two units.

The hemoglobin threshold should be adjusted based on fatigue or bone pain, Dr. Lal said. He also noted that patients with intact spleens have higher transfusion needs.

The rate of transfusion should be 5 mL/kg/hour in children and 200-300 mL/hour in adults, based on tolerance. Patients with impaired cardiac function should receive a reduced blood volume at a reduced rate.

Non–transfusion dependent thalassemia

Dr. Vichinsky discussed recommendations for non–transfusion dependent thalassemia (NTDT), noting that these patients may need transient transfusions to prevent morbidity.

Hemoglobin should not be the sole determinant of transfusion need in NTDT patients, he said. Their well-being – activity level, growth, and skeletal changes – is more important than hemoglobin levels. However, patients with hemoglobin levels less than 7 g/dL often have severe morbidity, and those with levels of 10 g/dL or greater are usually protected from severe morbidity.

Indications for transfusion in NTDT patients include:
 

• Growth failure.
• Hematopoietic tumors.
• Pulmonary hypertension.
• Silent brain infarcts.
• Skin ulcers.
• Severe bone pain.
• Poor quality of life.
• Frequent hemolytic crises.
• Marked and enlarging spleen.
• Failure of secondary sex development.
• Cosmetic and facial changes.
• Pregnancy.

“There is a risk to transfusing this population,” Dr. Vichinsky said. “They’re older, and when you transfuse them, they can get iron overloaded.”

He added that splenectomized NTDT patients have a high risk of alloimmunization, and the transfusion duration should be serially reevaluated in NTDT patients.

Alpha thalassemia major

For alpha thalassemia major, Dr. Vichinsky discussed the importance of prevention, screening, and fetal therapy. He said couples with a fetus at risk of alpha thalassemia major should be identified early and offered, in addition to termination, the option of early fetal transfusion.

Dr. Vichinsky recommended prenatal testing and monitoring of at-risk pregnancies with ultrasound. If the fetus requires a transfusion, monitoring hemoglobin Barts and hemoglobin A is necessary.

A fetus that requires a transfusion should receive packed red blood cells that are cytomegalovirus negative, are less than 7 days old, have been irradiated, have a hemoglobin mass greater than 75%, and have been optimally cross matched with the mother first.

“These babies appear, with serial transfusions, to survive and have a relatively normal neonatal period,” Dr. Vichinsky said.

He added, however, that postnatal management of alpha thalassemia major involves an aggressive transfusion protocol. These patients should be transfused to a higher hemoglobin level than patients with beta thalassemia – roughly 12 g/dL versus 10 g/dL.

These and Dr. Lal’s recommendations are based on information in the Standards of Care Guidelines for Thalassemia – Oakland 2011, the Thalassemia International Federation Guidelines – 2014, the Thalassemia Management Checklists: United States – 2018, the Thalassemia Western Consortium Consensus: US – 2019, and the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines – 2019.

Dr. Lal and Dr. Vichinsky did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

jensmith@mdedge.com

Fresher blood products are not necessarily better for patients with beta thalassemia, according to a pair of experts.

Red blood cell units stored less than 2 weeks are ideal, but older units are acceptable, and phenotype matching should take priority over unit age, advised Ashutosh Lal, MD, and Elliott Vichinsky, MD, both of UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.). They discussed these and other recommendations for transfusing patients with thalassemia during a webinar hosted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Indications for transfusion

Dr. Lal said patients with beta thalassemia major should be transfused if their hemoglobin is less than 7 g/dL on two occasions 2 weeks apart at baseline, or if their hemoglobin is greater than 7 g/dL and they have symptoms of anemia.

Patients with hemoglobin E beta thalassemia major should be transfused only if they have symptoms of anemia.

“The rationale is that, in beta thalassemia major, it is well established that, once the hemoglobin levels fall below 7 g/dL in young children, there is going to be massive bone marrow expansion, and there will be severe symptoms from anemia,” Dr. Lal said. “But the relationship of hemoglobin with symptoms in E beta thalassemia is less precise.”

The symptoms that should prompt transfusion include slowed growth, skeletal facial changes, splenomegaly, symptomatic or moderate to severe extramedullary hematopoiesis, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, pulmonary hypertension, osteoporotic fracture, and impaired quality of life in adults.

Dr. Lal said physicians should consider a 6-month trial of transfusions if the indication is unclear. He also noted that red cell antigen genotyping should be performed in all patients who may need transfusions.

Blood products

Dr. Lal said beta thalassemia patients should receive packed red blood cells that are leukoreduced prior to storage. The storage solution can be citrate-phosphate-dextrose solution with adenine (hematocrit 75%) or additive solution (hematocrit 60%).

“It’s important to note that the hematocrit of the two is quite different, and that needs to be inculcated into the decisions on how much volume to transfuse to younger children,” Dr. Lal said.

He noted that units should not be irradiated, as this damages the red cell membrane. And patients with severe allergic reactions should receive washed red blood cells because washing units removes residual donor plasma proteins.

Finally, units should be less than 2 weeks old if possible. Dr. Lal said using fresh units increases the survival of red blood cells post transfusion. However, he and Dr. Vichinsky both stressed that older units are acceptable, and phenotype matching is more important than the age of the unit.

Phenotype matching

Beta thalassemia patients who do not have preexisting alloantibodies or have transient autoantibodies should be matched to Rh and Kell, according to Dr. Lal.

Patients with preexisting alloantibodies should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, S, and the specific alloantibody. Patients with persistent autoantibodies should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, S, and any alloantibody.

Patients who start transfusions after 5 years of age should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, and S. Pregnant patients should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, and S, and units should be cytomegalovirus negative.

How to transfuse

Dr. Lal said the pretransfusion hemoglobin target is 10 g/dL, with a range of 9.5-10.5 g/dL in beta thalassemia major and a range of 9.0-10.5 g/dL for E beta thalassemia. A target of 10 g/dL is adequate for most individuals, Dr. Lal said, but he recommends individualization of hemoglobin target for patients with E beta thalassemia.

In general, patients should be transfused every 3 weeks, although 4 weeks is acceptable in younger children and those with hemoglobin E beta thalassemia.

As for the volume of a transfusion, children should receive 4 mL per kg of body weight, per gram increase in hemoglobin desired. Partial units can be used to avoid undertransfusion.

For adults, in general, those with pretransfusion hemoglobin less than 10 g/dL should receive three units, and those with pretransfusion hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or greater should receive two units.

The hemoglobin threshold should be adjusted based on fatigue or bone pain, Dr. Lal said. He also noted that patients with intact spleens have higher transfusion needs.

The rate of transfusion should be 5 mL/kg/hour in children and 200-300 mL/hour in adults, based on tolerance. Patients with impaired cardiac function should receive a reduced blood volume at a reduced rate.

Non–transfusion dependent thalassemia

Dr. Vichinsky discussed recommendations for non–transfusion dependent thalassemia (NTDT), noting that these patients may need transient transfusions to prevent morbidity.

Hemoglobin should not be the sole determinant of transfusion need in NTDT patients, he said. Their well-being – activity level, growth, and skeletal changes – is more important than hemoglobin levels. However, patients with hemoglobin levels less than 7 g/dL often have severe morbidity, and those with levels of 10 g/dL or greater are usually protected from severe morbidity.

Indications for transfusion in NTDT patients include:
 

• Growth failure.
• Hematopoietic tumors.
• Pulmonary hypertension.
• Silent brain infarcts.
• Skin ulcers.
• Severe bone pain.
• Poor quality of life.
• Frequent hemolytic crises.
• Marked and enlarging spleen.
• Failure of secondary sex development.
• Cosmetic and facial changes.
• Pregnancy.

“There is a risk to transfusing this population,” Dr. Vichinsky said. “They’re older, and when you transfuse them, they can get iron overloaded.”

He added that splenectomized NTDT patients have a high risk of alloimmunization, and the transfusion duration should be serially reevaluated in NTDT patients.

Alpha thalassemia major

For alpha thalassemia major, Dr. Vichinsky discussed the importance of prevention, screening, and fetal therapy. He said couples with a fetus at risk of alpha thalassemia major should be identified early and offered, in addition to termination, the option of early fetal transfusion.

Dr. Vichinsky recommended prenatal testing and monitoring of at-risk pregnancies with ultrasound. If the fetus requires a transfusion, monitoring hemoglobin Barts and hemoglobin A is necessary.

A fetus that requires a transfusion should receive packed red blood cells that are cytomegalovirus negative, are less than 7 days old, have been irradiated, have a hemoglobin mass greater than 75%, and have been optimally cross matched with the mother first.

“These babies appear, with serial transfusions, to survive and have a relatively normal neonatal period,” Dr. Vichinsky said.

He added, however, that postnatal management of alpha thalassemia major involves an aggressive transfusion protocol. These patients should be transfused to a higher hemoglobin level than patients with beta thalassemia – roughly 12 g/dL versus 10 g/dL.

These and Dr. Lal’s recommendations are based on information in the Standards of Care Guidelines for Thalassemia – Oakland 2011, the Thalassemia International Federation Guidelines – 2014, the Thalassemia Management Checklists: United States – 2018, the Thalassemia Western Consortium Consensus: US – 2019, and the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines – 2019.

Dr. Lal and Dr. Vichinsky did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

jensmith@mdedge.com

Fresher blood products are not necessarily better for patients with beta thalassemia, according to a pair of experts.

Red blood cell units stored less than 2 weeks are ideal, but older units are acceptable, and phenotype matching should take priority over unit age, advised Ashutosh Lal, MD, and Elliott Vichinsky, MD, both of UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.). They discussed these and other recommendations for transfusing patients with thalassemia during a webinar hosted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Indications for transfusion

Dr. Lal said patients with beta thalassemia major should be transfused if their hemoglobin is less than 7 g/dL on two occasions 2 weeks apart at baseline, or if their hemoglobin is greater than 7 g/dL and they have symptoms of anemia.

Patients with hemoglobin E beta thalassemia major should be transfused only if they have symptoms of anemia.

“The rationale is that, in beta thalassemia major, it is well established that, once the hemoglobin levels fall below 7 g/dL in young children, there is going to be massive bone marrow expansion, and there will be severe symptoms from anemia,” Dr. Lal said. “But the relationship of hemoglobin with symptoms in E beta thalassemia is less precise.”

The symptoms that should prompt transfusion include slowed growth, skeletal facial changes, splenomegaly, symptomatic or moderate to severe extramedullary hematopoiesis, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, pulmonary hypertension, osteoporotic fracture, and impaired quality of life in adults.

Dr. Lal said physicians should consider a 6-month trial of transfusions if the indication is unclear. He also noted that red cell antigen genotyping should be performed in all patients who may need transfusions.

Blood products

Dr. Lal said beta thalassemia patients should receive packed red blood cells that are leukoreduced prior to storage. The storage solution can be citrate-phosphate-dextrose solution with adenine (hematocrit 75%) or additive solution (hematocrit 60%).

“It’s important to note that the hematocrit of the two is quite different, and that needs to be inculcated into the decisions on how much volume to transfuse to younger children,” Dr. Lal said.

He noted that units should not be irradiated, as this damages the red cell membrane. And patients with severe allergic reactions should receive washed red blood cells because washing units removes residual donor plasma proteins.

Finally, units should be less than 2 weeks old if possible. Dr. Lal said using fresh units increases the survival of red blood cells post transfusion. However, he and Dr. Vichinsky both stressed that older units are acceptable, and phenotype matching is more important than the age of the unit.

Phenotype matching

Beta thalassemia patients who do not have preexisting alloantibodies or have transient autoantibodies should be matched to Rh and Kell, according to Dr. Lal.

Patients with preexisting alloantibodies should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, S, and the specific alloantibody. Patients with persistent autoantibodies should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, S, and any alloantibody.

Patients who start transfusions after 5 years of age should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, and S. Pregnant patients should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, and S, and units should be cytomegalovirus negative.

How to transfuse

Dr. Lal said the pretransfusion hemoglobin target is 10 g/dL, with a range of 9.5-10.5 g/dL in beta thalassemia major and a range of 9.0-10.5 g/dL for E beta thalassemia. A target of 10 g/dL is adequate for most individuals, Dr. Lal said, but he recommends individualization of hemoglobin target for patients with E beta thalassemia.

In general, patients should be transfused every 3 weeks, although 4 weeks is acceptable in younger children and those with hemoglobin E beta thalassemia.

As for the volume of a transfusion, children should receive 4 mL per kg of body weight, per gram increase in hemoglobin desired. Partial units can be used to avoid undertransfusion.

For adults, in general, those with pretransfusion hemoglobin less than 10 g/dL should receive three units, and those with pretransfusion hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or greater should receive two units.

The hemoglobin threshold should be adjusted based on fatigue or bone pain, Dr. Lal said. He also noted that patients with intact spleens have higher transfusion needs.

The rate of transfusion should be 5 mL/kg/hour in children and 200-300 mL/hour in adults, based on tolerance. Patients with impaired cardiac function should receive a reduced blood volume at a reduced rate.

Non–transfusion dependent thalassemia

Dr. Vichinsky discussed recommendations for non–transfusion dependent thalassemia (NTDT), noting that these patients may need transient transfusions to prevent morbidity.

Hemoglobin should not be the sole determinant of transfusion need in NTDT patients, he said. Their well-being – activity level, growth, and skeletal changes – is more important than hemoglobin levels. However, patients with hemoglobin levels less than 7 g/dL often have severe morbidity, and those with levels of 10 g/dL or greater are usually protected from severe morbidity.

Indications for transfusion in NTDT patients include:
 

• Growth failure.
• Hematopoietic tumors.
• Pulmonary hypertension.
• Silent brain infarcts.
• Skin ulcers.
• Severe bone pain.
• Poor quality of life.
• Frequent hemolytic crises.
• Marked and enlarging spleen.
• Failure of secondary sex development.
• Cosmetic and facial changes.
• Pregnancy.

“There is a risk to transfusing this population,” Dr. Vichinsky said. “They’re older, and when you transfuse them, they can get iron overloaded.”

He added that splenectomized NTDT patients have a high risk of alloimmunization, and the transfusion duration should be serially reevaluated in NTDT patients.

Alpha thalassemia major

For alpha thalassemia major, Dr. Vichinsky discussed the importance of prevention, screening, and fetal therapy. He said couples with a fetus at risk of alpha thalassemia major should be identified early and offered, in addition to termination, the option of early fetal transfusion.

Dr. Vichinsky recommended prenatal testing and monitoring of at-risk pregnancies with ultrasound. If the fetus requires a transfusion, monitoring hemoglobin Barts and hemoglobin A is necessary.

A fetus that requires a transfusion should receive packed red blood cells that are cytomegalovirus negative, are less than 7 days old, have been irradiated, have a hemoglobin mass greater than 75%, and have been optimally cross matched with the mother first.

“These babies appear, with serial transfusions, to survive and have a relatively normal neonatal period,” Dr. Vichinsky said.

He added, however, that postnatal management of alpha thalassemia major involves an aggressive transfusion protocol. These patients should be transfused to a higher hemoglobin level than patients with beta thalassemia – roughly 12 g/dL versus 10 g/dL.

These and Dr. Lal’s recommendations are based on information in the Standards of Care Guidelines for Thalassemia – Oakland 2011, the Thalassemia International Federation Guidelines – 2014, the Thalassemia Management Checklists: United States – 2018, the Thalassemia Western Consortium Consensus: US – 2019, and the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines – 2019.

Dr. Lal and Dr. Vichinsky did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

jensmith@mdedge.com

Trial results suggest African children with uncomplicated, severe anemia may not require immediate blood transfusion, and the volume of transfusion may only matter in the context of fever.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The TRACT trial showed no significant differences in 28-day mortality or other clinical outcomes between children who received immediate transfusions and those who did not.

Similarly, there was no significant difference in 28-day mortality among children who received transfusions of 20 mL/kg and those who received transfusions of 30 mL/kg. There was evidence to suggest a higher transfusion volume may benefit children without fevers, but this was an exploratory endpoint. The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

These results suggest “there is no credible reason to transfuse immediately or to transfuse a higher volume of blood, at least in pediatric populations in regions such as these two sub-Saharan countries [Uganda and Malawi],” Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial, also published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019;381:475-6).

“The possible effect of higher volume transfusion in patients with fever may trigger additional and potentially useful studies,” she added.

Immediate transfusion

One goal of the TRACT trial was to determine if blood transfusion is the best treatment for children with severe anemia. With this in mind, Kathryn Maitland, MD, PhD, of Imperial College London and colleagues evaluated 1,565 Ugandan and Malawian children with uncomplicated, severe anemia. The patients’ median age was 26 months, and 984 (62.9%) had malaria.

The children were randomized to immediate transfusion (n = 778) or no immediate transfusion (n = 787). Children who did not have an immediate transfusion (control group) could receive a transfusion if they exhibited new signs of clinical severity or had their hemoglobin decrease to below 4 g/dL.

All children in the immediate-transfusion group received a transfusion, as did 386 (49.0%) in the control group. The median time to transfusion was 1.3 hours in the immediate group and 24.9 hours in the control group. The mean total blood volume transfused per child was 314 plus or minus 228 mL and 142 plus or minus 224, respectively. The follow-up period was 180 days, and 4.5% of patients (n = 71) were lost to follow-up.

The researchers found no significant difference between the treatment groups with regard to mortality, other clinical outcomes, or the cost of care.

The 28-day mortality rate was 0.9% in the immediate-transfusion group and 1.7% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-1.36; P = .19). The 180-day mortality was 4.5% and 6.0%, respectively (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.48-1.15).
 

Transfusion volume

To assess the effects of transfusion volume, Dr. Maitland and colleagues evaluated 3,196 Ugandan and Malawian children with severe anemia. The median age of the children was 37 months, and 2,050 (64.1%) had malaria.

The children received a transfusion of 30 mL/kg (n = 1,592) or 20 mL/kg (n = 1,596) at a median of 1.2 hours after randomization. Some children – 197 in the 30-mL/kg group and 300 in the 20-mL/kg group – received additional transfusions. The mean volume of total blood transfused per child was 475 plus or minus 385 mL, and 353 plus or minus 348 mL, respectively.

Overall, there was no significant between-group difference with regard to mortality. The 28-day mortality rate was 3.4% in the 30 mL/kg group and 4.5% in the 20 mL/kg group (HR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.08; P = .12).

However, the 28-day mortality rate did differ according to the presence of fever at screening. The mortality rate was lower in the 30 mL/kg group for children without fevers (HR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.69) but higher in the 30 mL/kg group for febrile children (HR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.49).

For other outcomes, including readmissions and serious adverse events, the researchers found no significant between-group differences.

This trial was supported by a grant from the United Kingdom Medical Research Council through a concordat with the Department for International Development. One researcher has a Wellcome Senior Research Fellowship, and another is a National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator. Dr. Ingelfinger is a deputy editor at the New England Journal of Medicine. No other relevant conflicts of interest were reported.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Maitland K et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:407-19. Maitland K et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:420-31.


 

Trial results suggest African children with uncomplicated, severe anemia may not require immediate blood transfusion, and the volume of transfusion may only matter in the context of fever.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The TRACT trial showed no significant differences in 28-day mortality or other clinical outcomes between children who received immediate transfusions and those who did not.

Similarly, there was no significant difference in 28-day mortality among children who received transfusions of 20 mL/kg and those who received transfusions of 30 mL/kg. There was evidence to suggest a higher transfusion volume may benefit children without fevers, but this was an exploratory endpoint. The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

These results suggest “there is no credible reason to transfuse immediately or to transfuse a higher volume of blood, at least in pediatric populations in regions such as these two sub-Saharan countries [Uganda and Malawi],” Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial, also published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019;381:475-6).

“The possible effect of higher volume transfusion in patients with fever may trigger additional and potentially useful studies,” she added.

Immediate transfusion

One goal of the TRACT trial was to determine if blood transfusion is the best treatment for children with severe anemia. With this in mind, Kathryn Maitland, MD, PhD, of Imperial College London and colleagues evaluated 1,565 Ugandan and Malawian children with uncomplicated, severe anemia. The patients’ median age was 26 months, and 984 (62.9%) had malaria.

The children were randomized to immediate transfusion (n = 778) or no immediate transfusion (n = 787). Children who did not have an immediate transfusion (control group) could receive a transfusion if they exhibited new signs of clinical severity or had their hemoglobin decrease to below 4 g/dL.

All children in the immediate-transfusion group received a transfusion, as did 386 (49.0%) in the control group. The median time to transfusion was 1.3 hours in the immediate group and 24.9 hours in the control group. The mean total blood volume transfused per child was 314 plus or minus 228 mL and 142 plus or minus 224, respectively. The follow-up period was 180 days, and 4.5% of patients (n = 71) were lost to follow-up.

The researchers found no significant difference between the treatment groups with regard to mortality, other clinical outcomes, or the cost of care.

The 28-day mortality rate was 0.9% in the immediate-transfusion group and 1.7% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-1.36; P = .19). The 180-day mortality was 4.5% and 6.0%, respectively (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.48-1.15).
 

Transfusion volume

To assess the effects of transfusion volume, Dr. Maitland and colleagues evaluated 3,196 Ugandan and Malawian children with severe anemia. The median age of the children was 37 months, and 2,050 (64.1%) had malaria.

The children received a transfusion of 30 mL/kg (n = 1,592) or 20 mL/kg (n = 1,596) at a median of 1.2 hours after randomization. Some children – 197 in the 30-mL/kg group and 300 in the 20-mL/kg group – received additional transfusions. The mean volume of total blood transfused per child was 475 plus or minus 385 mL, and 353 plus or minus 348 mL, respectively.

Overall, there was no significant between-group difference with regard to mortality. The 28-day mortality rate was 3.4% in the 30 mL/kg group and 4.5% in the 20 mL/kg group (HR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.08; P = .12).

However, the 28-day mortality rate did differ according to the presence of fever at screening. The mortality rate was lower in the 30 mL/kg group for children without fevers (HR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.69) but higher in the 30 mL/kg group for febrile children (HR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.49).

For other outcomes, including readmissions and serious adverse events, the researchers found no significant between-group differences.

This trial was supported by a grant from the United Kingdom Medical Research Council through a concordat with the Department for International Development. One researcher has a Wellcome Senior Research Fellowship, and another is a National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator. Dr. Ingelfinger is a deputy editor at the New England Journal of Medicine. No other relevant conflicts of interest were reported.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Maitland K et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:407-19. Maitland K et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:420-31.


 

Trial results suggest African children with uncomplicated, severe anemia may not require immediate blood transfusion, and the volume of transfusion may only matter in the context of fever.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The TRACT trial showed no significant differences in 28-day mortality or other clinical outcomes between children who received immediate transfusions and those who did not.

Similarly, there was no significant difference in 28-day mortality among children who received transfusions of 20 mL/kg and those who received transfusions of 30 mL/kg. There was evidence to suggest a higher transfusion volume may benefit children without fevers, but this was an exploratory endpoint. The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

These results suggest “there is no credible reason to transfuse immediately or to transfuse a higher volume of blood, at least in pediatric populations in regions such as these two sub-Saharan countries [Uganda and Malawi],” Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial, also published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019;381:475-6).

“The possible effect of higher volume transfusion in patients with fever may trigger additional and potentially useful studies,” she added.

Immediate transfusion

One goal of the TRACT trial was to determine if blood transfusion is the best treatment for children with severe anemia. With this in mind, Kathryn Maitland, MD, PhD, of Imperial College London and colleagues evaluated 1,565 Ugandan and Malawian children with uncomplicated, severe anemia. The patients’ median age was 26 months, and 984 (62.9%) had malaria.

The children were randomized to immediate transfusion (n = 778) or no immediate transfusion (n = 787). Children who did not have an immediate transfusion (control group) could receive a transfusion if they exhibited new signs of clinical severity or had their hemoglobin decrease to below 4 g/dL.

All children in the immediate-transfusion group received a transfusion, as did 386 (49.0%) in the control group. The median time to transfusion was 1.3 hours in the immediate group and 24.9 hours in the control group. The mean total blood volume transfused per child was 314 plus or minus 228 mL and 142 plus or minus 224, respectively. The follow-up period was 180 days, and 4.5% of patients (n = 71) were lost to follow-up.

The researchers found no significant difference between the treatment groups with regard to mortality, other clinical outcomes, or the cost of care.

The 28-day mortality rate was 0.9% in the immediate-transfusion group and 1.7% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-1.36; P = .19). The 180-day mortality was 4.5% and 6.0%, respectively (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.48-1.15).
 

Transfusion volume

To assess the effects of transfusion volume, Dr. Maitland and colleagues evaluated 3,196 Ugandan and Malawian children with severe anemia. The median age of the children was 37 months, and 2,050 (64.1%) had malaria.

The children received a transfusion of 30 mL/kg (n = 1,592) or 20 mL/kg (n = 1,596) at a median of 1.2 hours after randomization. Some children – 197 in the 30-mL/kg group and 300 in the 20-mL/kg group – received additional transfusions. The mean volume of total blood transfused per child was 475 plus or minus 385 mL, and 353 plus or minus 348 mL, respectively.

Overall, there was no significant between-group difference with regard to mortality. The 28-day mortality rate was 3.4% in the 30 mL/kg group and 4.5% in the 20 mL/kg group (HR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.08; P = .12).

However, the 28-day mortality rate did differ according to the presence of fever at screening. The mortality rate was lower in the 30 mL/kg group for children without fevers (HR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.69) but higher in the 30 mL/kg group for febrile children (HR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.49).

For other outcomes, including readmissions and serious adverse events, the researchers found no significant between-group differences.

This trial was supported by a grant from the United Kingdom Medical Research Council through a concordat with the Department for International Development. One researcher has a Wellcome Senior Research Fellowship, and another is a National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator. Dr. Ingelfinger is a deputy editor at the New England Journal of Medicine. No other relevant conflicts of interest were reported.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Maitland K et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:407-19. Maitland K et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:420-31.


 

Photo by Elise Amendola

An initiative that reduced red blood cell (RBC) transfusions and increased moderate anemia in hospital did not adversely impact patients long-term, according to an analysis.

Researchers found that an increase in moderate in-hospital anemia did not increase subsequent RBC use, readmission, or mortality over the next 6 months.

However, authors of a related editorial argued that additional factors must be assessed to truly determine the effects of moderate anemia on patient outcomes.

The study and the editorial were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Study: Long-term outcomes

Nareg H. Roubinian, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland, and colleagues sought to evaluate the impact of blood management programs—starting in 2010—that included blood-sparing surgical and medical techniques, increased use of hemostatic and cell salvage agents, and treatment of suboptimal iron stores before surgery.

In previous retrospective cohort studies, the researchers had found that blood conservation strategies did not impact in-hospital or 30-day mortality rates, which was consistent with short-term safety data from clinical trials and other observational studies.

Their new report on longer-term outcomes was based on data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California for 445,371 adults who had 801,261 hospitalizations with discharges between 2010 and 2014.

In this cohort, moderate anemia (hemoglobin between 7 g/dL and 10 g/dL) at discharge occurred in 119,489 patients (27%) and 187,440 hospitalizations overall (23%).

Over the 2010-2014 period, RBC transfusions decreased by more than 25% in the inpatient and outpatient settings. In parallel, the prevalence of moderate anemia at hospital discharge increased from 20% to 25%.

However, the risks of subsequent RBC transfusions and rehospitalization after discharge with anemia decreased during the study period, and mortality rates stayed steady or decreased slightly.

Among patients with moderate anemia, the proportion with subsequent RBC transfusions within 6 months decreased from 18.9% in 2010 to 16.8% in 2014 (P<0.001), while the rate of rehospitalization within 6 months decreased from 36.5% to 32.8% over that same time period (P<0.001).

The adjusted 6-month mortality rate likewise decreased from 16.1% to 15.6% (P=0.004) over that time period among patients with moderate anemia.

“These data support the efficacy and safety of practice recommendations to limit red blood cell transfusion in patients with anemia during and after hospitalization,” the researchers wrote.

However, they also said additional studies are needed to guide anemia management, particularly since persistent anemia has impacts on quality of life that are “likely to be substantial” and linked to the severity of that anemia.

This study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Roubinian and several coauthors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Editorial: Aim to treat anemia, not tolerate it

Dr. Roubinian and his colleagues’ findings warrant some scrutiny, according to Aryeh Shander, MD, of Englewood Hospital and Medical Center in New Jersey, and Lawrence Tim Goodnough, MD, of Stanford University in California.

“Missing here is a wide spectrum of morbidity outcomes and issues related to diminished quality of life that do not reach the level of severity that would necessitate admission but nonetheless detract from patients’ health and well-being,” Drs. Shander and Goodnough wrote in a related editorial.

They also noted that transfusion rate is not a clinical outcome, adding that readmission and mortality are important outcomes, but they do not accurately or fully reflect patient well-being.

While blood management initiatives may be a safe practice, as the study suggests, proper management of anemia after discharge may actually improve outcomes, given the many consequences of anemia, Drs. Shander and Goodnough wrote.

The pair suggested that, instead of again testing whether restricting transfusions is acceptable because of lack of impact on outcomes, future studies could evaluate a “more sensible” hypothesis that proper anemia management, especially post-discharge, could improve outcomes.

“Let’s increase efforts to prevent and treat anemia properly, rather than requiring patients to tolerate it,” Drs. Shander and Goodnough wrote.

Dr. Shander reported consulting fees from Vifor and AMAG. Dr. Goodnough reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Photo by Elise Amendola

An initiative that reduced red blood cell (RBC) transfusions and increased moderate anemia in hospital did not adversely impact patients long-term, according to an analysis.

Researchers found that an increase in moderate in-hospital anemia did not increase subsequent RBC use, readmission, or mortality over the next 6 months.

However, authors of a related editorial argued that additional factors must be assessed to truly determine the effects of moderate anemia on patient outcomes.

The study and the editorial were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Study: Long-term outcomes

Nareg H. Roubinian, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland, and colleagues sought to evaluate the impact of blood management programs—starting in 2010—that included blood-sparing surgical and medical techniques, increased use of hemostatic and cell salvage agents, and treatment of suboptimal iron stores before surgery.

In previous retrospective cohort studies, the researchers had found that blood conservation strategies did not impact in-hospital or 30-day mortality rates, which was consistent with short-term safety data from clinical trials and other observational studies.

Their new report on longer-term outcomes was based on data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California for 445,371 adults who had 801,261 hospitalizations with discharges between 2010 and 2014.

In this cohort, moderate anemia (hemoglobin between 7 g/dL and 10 g/dL) at discharge occurred in 119,489 patients (27%) and 187,440 hospitalizations overall (23%).

Over the 2010-2014 period, RBC transfusions decreased by more than 25% in the inpatient and outpatient settings. In parallel, the prevalence of moderate anemia at hospital discharge increased from 20% to 25%.

However, the risks of subsequent RBC transfusions and rehospitalization after discharge with anemia decreased during the study period, and mortality rates stayed steady or decreased slightly.

Among patients with moderate anemia, the proportion with subsequent RBC transfusions within 6 months decreased from 18.9% in 2010 to 16.8% in 2014 (P<0.001), while the rate of rehospitalization within 6 months decreased from 36.5% to 32.8% over that same time period (P<0.001).

The adjusted 6-month mortality rate likewise decreased from 16.1% to 15.6% (P=0.004) over that time period among patients with moderate anemia.

“These data support the efficacy and safety of practice recommendations to limit red blood cell transfusion in patients with anemia during and after hospitalization,” the researchers wrote.

However, they also said additional studies are needed to guide anemia management, particularly since persistent anemia has impacts on quality of life that are “likely to be substantial” and linked to the severity of that anemia.

This study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Roubinian and several coauthors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Editorial: Aim to treat anemia, not tolerate it

Dr. Roubinian and his colleagues’ findings warrant some scrutiny, according to Aryeh Shander, MD, of Englewood Hospital and Medical Center in New Jersey, and Lawrence Tim Goodnough, MD, of Stanford University in California.

“Missing here is a wide spectrum of morbidity outcomes and issues related to diminished quality of life that do not reach the level of severity that would necessitate admission but nonetheless detract from patients’ health and well-being,” Drs. Shander and Goodnough wrote in a related editorial.

They also noted that transfusion rate is not a clinical outcome, adding that readmission and mortality are important outcomes, but they do not accurately or fully reflect patient well-being.

While blood management initiatives may be a safe practice, as the study suggests, proper management of anemia after discharge may actually improve outcomes, given the many consequences of anemia, Drs. Shander and Goodnough wrote.

The pair suggested that, instead of again testing whether restricting transfusions is acceptable because of lack of impact on outcomes, future studies could evaluate a “more sensible” hypothesis that proper anemia management, especially post-discharge, could improve outcomes.

“Let’s increase efforts to prevent and treat anemia properly, rather than requiring patients to tolerate it,” Drs. Shander and Goodnough wrote.

Dr. Shander reported consulting fees from Vifor and AMAG. Dr. Goodnough reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Photo by Elise Amendola

An initiative that reduced red blood cell (RBC) transfusions and increased moderate anemia in hospital did not adversely impact patients long-term, according to an analysis.

Researchers found that an increase in moderate in-hospital anemia did not increase subsequent RBC use, readmission, or mortality over the next 6 months.

However, authors of a related editorial argued that additional factors must be assessed to truly determine the effects of moderate anemia on patient outcomes.

The study and the editorial were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Study: Long-term outcomes

Nareg H. Roubinian, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland, and colleagues sought to evaluate the impact of blood management programs—starting in 2010—that included blood-sparing surgical and medical techniques, increased use of hemostatic and cell salvage agents, and treatment of suboptimal iron stores before surgery.

In previous retrospective cohort studies, the researchers had found that blood conservation strategies did not impact in-hospital or 30-day mortality rates, which was consistent with short-term safety data from clinical trials and other observational studies.

Their new report on longer-term outcomes was based on data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California for 445,371 adults who had 801,261 hospitalizations with discharges between 2010 and 2014.

In this cohort, moderate anemia (hemoglobin between 7 g/dL and 10 g/dL) at discharge occurred in 119,489 patients (27%) and 187,440 hospitalizations overall (23%).

Over the 2010-2014 period, RBC transfusions decreased by more than 25% in the inpatient and outpatient settings. In parallel, the prevalence of moderate anemia at hospital discharge increased from 20% to 25%.

However, the risks of subsequent RBC transfusions and rehospitalization after discharge with anemia decreased during the study period, and mortality rates stayed steady or decreased slightly.

Among patients with moderate anemia, the proportion with subsequent RBC transfusions within 6 months decreased from 18.9% in 2010 to 16.8% in 2014 (P<0.001), while the rate of rehospitalization within 6 months decreased from 36.5% to 32.8% over that same time period (P<0.001).

The adjusted 6-month mortality rate likewise decreased from 16.1% to 15.6% (P=0.004) over that time period among patients with moderate anemia.

“These data support the efficacy and safety of practice recommendations to limit red blood cell transfusion in patients with anemia during and after hospitalization,” the researchers wrote.

However, they also said additional studies are needed to guide anemia management, particularly since persistent anemia has impacts on quality of life that are “likely to be substantial” and linked to the severity of that anemia.

This study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Roubinian and several coauthors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Editorial: Aim to treat anemia, not tolerate it

Dr. Roubinian and his colleagues’ findings warrant some scrutiny, according to Aryeh Shander, MD, of Englewood Hospital and Medical Center in New Jersey, and Lawrence Tim Goodnough, MD, of Stanford University in California.

“Missing here is a wide spectrum of morbidity outcomes and issues related to diminished quality of life that do not reach the level of severity that would necessitate admission but nonetheless detract from patients’ health and well-being,” Drs. Shander and Goodnough wrote in a related editorial.

They also noted that transfusion rate is not a clinical outcome, adding that readmission and mortality are important outcomes, but they do not accurately or fully reflect patient well-being.

While blood management initiatives may be a safe practice, as the study suggests, proper management of anemia after discharge may actually improve outcomes, given the many consequences of anemia, Drs. Shander and Goodnough wrote.

The pair suggested that, instead of again testing whether restricting transfusions is acceptable because of lack of impact on outcomes, future studies could evaluate a “more sensible” hypothesis that proper anemia management, especially post-discharge, could improve outcomes.

“Let’s increase efforts to prevent and treat anemia properly, rather than requiring patients to tolerate it,” Drs. Shander and Goodnough wrote.

Dr. Shander reported consulting fees from Vifor and AMAG. Dr. Goodnough reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Photo by Piotr Bodzek

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for lusutrombopag to treat severe thrombocytopenia in adults with chronic liver disease who are undergoing invasive procedures.

Lusutrombopag is a thrombopoietin (TPO) receptor agonist that acts on the transmembrane domain of TPO receptors to induce proliferation and differentiation of megakaryocyte progenitor cells, thus leading to thrombocytopoiesis.

Lusutrombopag is intended to reduce the need for platelet transfusions before an invasive procedure and for rescue therapy for bleeding in the 7 days after the procedure.

The CHMP’s recommendation for lusutrombopag will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of a CHMP recommendation.

Lusutrombopag trials

The efficacy of lusutrombopag was evaluated in two phase 3 trials—L-PLUS1 (1304M0631) and L-PLUS2 (1423M0634, NCT02389621).

The trials included 312 patients with chronic liver disease, severe thrombocytopenia (platelet counts below 50,000/μL), and a scheduled invasive procedure. The patients received lusutrombopag or placebo once daily for up to 7 days.

In L-PLUS1, 78% (38/49) of patients receiving lusutrombopag did not require platelet transfusions prior to the primary invasive procedure. The same was true for 13% (6/48) of patients who received placebo (P<0.0001).

In L-PLUS2 , 65% (70/108) of patients who received lusutrombopag did not require platelet transfusions prior to the primary invasive procedure or rescue therapy for bleeding in the 7 days after the procedure. The same was true for 29% (31/107) of patients receiving placebo (P<0.0001).

The safety of lusutrombopag was evaluated in three trials—L‐PLUS 1, L‐PLUS 2, and M0626 (1208M062).

The most common adverse event (AE) in these trials (n=341) was headache, which occurred in 5% of patients on lusutrombopag and 4% of patients on placebo.

Serious AEs occurred in 5% of patients on lusutrombopag and 7% of patients on placebo. The most common serious AE was portal vein thrombosis, which occurred in 1% of patients in both treatment groups.

None of the patients discontinued lusutrombopag due to AEs.

The trials were sponsored by Shionogi & Co., Ltd.

Photo by Piotr Bodzek

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for lusutrombopag to treat severe thrombocytopenia in adults with chronic liver disease who are undergoing invasive procedures.

Lusutrombopag is a thrombopoietin (TPO) receptor agonist that acts on the transmembrane domain of TPO receptors to induce proliferation and differentiation of megakaryocyte progenitor cells, thus leading to thrombocytopoiesis.

Lusutrombopag is intended to reduce the need for platelet transfusions before an invasive procedure and for rescue therapy for bleeding in the 7 days after the procedure.

The CHMP’s recommendation for lusutrombopag will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of a CHMP recommendation.

Lusutrombopag trials

The efficacy of lusutrombopag was evaluated in two phase 3 trials—L-PLUS1 (1304M0631) and L-PLUS2 (1423M0634, NCT02389621).

The trials included 312 patients with chronic liver disease, severe thrombocytopenia (platelet counts below 50,000/μL), and a scheduled invasive procedure. The patients received lusutrombopag or placebo once daily for up to 7 days.

In L-PLUS1, 78% (38/49) of patients receiving lusutrombopag did not require platelet transfusions prior to the primary invasive procedure. The same was true for 13% (6/48) of patients who received placebo (P<0.0001).

In L-PLUS2 , 65% (70/108) of patients who received lusutrombopag did not require platelet transfusions prior to the primary invasive procedure or rescue therapy for bleeding in the 7 days after the procedure. The same was true for 29% (31/107) of patients receiving placebo (P<0.0001).

The safety of lusutrombopag was evaluated in three trials—L‐PLUS 1, L‐PLUS 2, and M0626 (1208M062).

The most common adverse event (AE) in these trials (n=341) was headache, which occurred in 5% of patients on lusutrombopag and 4% of patients on placebo.

Serious AEs occurred in 5% of patients on lusutrombopag and 7% of patients on placebo. The most common serious AE was portal vein thrombosis, which occurred in 1% of patients in both treatment groups.

None of the patients discontinued lusutrombopag due to AEs.

The trials were sponsored by Shionogi & Co., Ltd.

Photo by Piotr Bodzek

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for lusutrombopag to treat severe thrombocytopenia in adults with chronic liver disease who are undergoing invasive procedures.

Lusutrombopag is a thrombopoietin (TPO) receptor agonist that acts on the transmembrane domain of TPO receptors to induce proliferation and differentiation of megakaryocyte progenitor cells, thus leading to thrombocytopoiesis.

Lusutrombopag is intended to reduce the need for platelet transfusions before an invasive procedure and for rescue therapy for bleeding in the 7 days after the procedure.

The CHMP’s recommendation for lusutrombopag will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of a CHMP recommendation.

Lusutrombopag trials

The efficacy of lusutrombopag was evaluated in two phase 3 trials—L-PLUS1 (1304M0631) and L-PLUS2 (1423M0634, NCT02389621).

The trials included 312 patients with chronic liver disease, severe thrombocytopenia (platelet counts below 50,000/μL), and a scheduled invasive procedure. The patients received lusutrombopag or placebo once daily for up to 7 days.

In L-PLUS1, 78% (38/49) of patients receiving lusutrombopag did not require platelet transfusions prior to the primary invasive procedure. The same was true for 13% (6/48) of patients who received placebo (P<0.0001).

In L-PLUS2 , 65% (70/108) of patients who received lusutrombopag did not require platelet transfusions prior to the primary invasive procedure or rescue therapy for bleeding in the 7 days after the procedure. The same was true for 29% (31/107) of patients receiving placebo (P<0.0001).

The safety of lusutrombopag was evaluated in three trials—L‐PLUS 1, L‐PLUS 2, and M0626 (1208M062).

The most common adverse event (AE) in these trials (n=341) was headache, which occurred in 5% of patients on lusutrombopag and 4% of patients on placebo.

Serious AEs occurred in 5% of patients on lusutrombopag and 7% of patients on placebo. The most common serious AE was portal vein thrombosis, which occurred in 1% of patients in both treatment groups.

None of the patients discontinued lusutrombopag due to AEs.

The trials were sponsored by Shionogi & Co., Ltd.

Photo from Flickr

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently released a draft guidance on reducing the risk of bacterial contamination in platelets destined for transfusion, especially those stored at room temperature.

The recommendations in this guidance incorporate ideas put forth during a July meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee.

Committee members were asked to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various strategies to control the risk of bacterial contamination in platelets, including the scientific evidence and the operational considerations involved.

Since the last guidance document on this topic was issued in 2016, there have been new developments that could potentially reduce the risk of bacterial contamination of platelets and permit extension of platelet dating up to 7 days.

These developments include bacterial testing strategies using culture-based devices, rapid bacterial detection devices, and the implementation of pathogen-reduction technology.

The new draft guidance “further advances the potential for technology to be used to reduce the risk of contamination of the blood supply from known and emerging pathogens and to measurably increase the availability of safe blood products while ultimately reducing cost overall,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“The U.S. has one of the world’s safest blood supplies, but there remains risk, albeit uncommon, of contamination with infectious diseases, particularly with blood products that are stored at room temperature. While we’ve made great strides in reducing the risk of blood contamination through donor screening and laboratory testing, we continue to support innovations and blood product alternatives that can better keep pace with emerging pathogens and reduce some of the logistical challenges and costs associated with ensuring the safety of blood products.”

The draft guidance, “Bacterial Risk Control Strategies for Blood Collection Establishments and Transfusion Services to Enhance the Safety and Availability of Platelets for Transfusion,” will be open for public comment through February 4, 2019.

Comments may be submitted online at https://www.regulations.gov/ or by mail to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

Photo from Flickr

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently released a draft guidance on reducing the risk of bacterial contamination in platelets destined for transfusion, especially those stored at room temperature.

The recommendations in this guidance incorporate ideas put forth during a July meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee.

Committee members were asked to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various strategies to control the risk of bacterial contamination in platelets, including the scientific evidence and the operational considerations involved.

Since the last guidance document on this topic was issued in 2016, there have been new developments that could potentially reduce the risk of bacterial contamination of platelets and permit extension of platelet dating up to 7 days.

These developments include bacterial testing strategies using culture-based devices, rapid bacterial detection devices, and the implementation of pathogen-reduction technology.

The new draft guidance “further advances the potential for technology to be used to reduce the risk of contamination of the blood supply from known and emerging pathogens and to measurably increase the availability of safe blood products while ultimately reducing cost overall,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“The U.S. has one of the world’s safest blood supplies, but there remains risk, albeit uncommon, of contamination with infectious diseases, particularly with blood products that are stored at room temperature. While we’ve made great strides in reducing the risk of blood contamination through donor screening and laboratory testing, we continue to support innovations and blood product alternatives that can better keep pace with emerging pathogens and reduce some of the logistical challenges and costs associated with ensuring the safety of blood products.”

The draft guidance, “Bacterial Risk Control Strategies for Blood Collection Establishments and Transfusion Services to Enhance the Safety and Availability of Platelets for Transfusion,” will be open for public comment through February 4, 2019.

Comments may be submitted online at https://www.regulations.gov/ or by mail to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

Photo from Flickr

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently released a draft guidance on reducing the risk of bacterial contamination in platelets destined for transfusion, especially those stored at room temperature.

The recommendations in this guidance incorporate ideas put forth during a July meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee.

Committee members were asked to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various strategies to control the risk of bacterial contamination in platelets, including the scientific evidence and the operational considerations involved.

Since the last guidance document on this topic was issued in 2016, there have been new developments that could potentially reduce the risk of bacterial contamination of platelets and permit extension of platelet dating up to 7 days.

These developments include bacterial testing strategies using culture-based devices, rapid bacterial detection devices, and the implementation of pathogen-reduction technology.

The new draft guidance “further advances the potential for technology to be used to reduce the risk of contamination of the blood supply from known and emerging pathogens and to measurably increase the availability of safe blood products while ultimately reducing cost overall,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“The U.S. has one of the world’s safest blood supplies, but there remains risk, albeit uncommon, of contamination with infectious diseases, particularly with blood products that are stored at room temperature. While we’ve made great strides in reducing the risk of blood contamination through donor screening and laboratory testing, we continue to support innovations and blood product alternatives that can better keep pace with emerging pathogens and reduce some of the logistical challenges and costs associated with ensuring the safety of blood products.”

The draft guidance, “Bacterial Risk Control Strategies for Blood Collection Establishments and Transfusion Services to Enhance the Safety and Availability of Platelets for Transfusion,” will be open for public comment through February 4, 2019.

Comments may be submitted online at https://www.regulations.gov/ or by mail to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

Photo by Neil Osterweil

BOSTON—Results of a pilot program suggest preoperative management of anemia can reduce transfusion rates and cut costs, but the effect on patient outcomes isn’t clear.

For this program, anemic patients received dietary guidance and supplementation prior to surgery.

This increased day-of-surgery hemoglobin levels, reduced intraoperative and postoperative transfusions, and resulted in a cost savings of more than $100,000 over the life of the program.

Christine M. Cahill, BSN, MS, RN, of the University of Rochester and Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, New York, presented these results at AABB 2018 (abstract PBM4-ST4-22*).

“Anemia has been thought of as a relatively benign thing our patients live with, traditionally, but what we have been finding lately is that anemia is actually more serious than we once thought and is an independent risk factor for hospitalization, readmission, increased patient length of stay, loss of function, and diminished quality of life,” Cahill said.

She added that anemia also increases the likelihood that a patient will require transfusions.

The pilot program was implemented with this in mind. The program, which ran from February 2016 through September 2017, was designed to test the feasibility of diagnosing anemia during a cardiology consult visit and implementing an anemia management plan.

During the study period, 240 patients presenting for elective cardiac surgery were screened for anemia, and 58 were diagnosed as anemic (hemoglobin <12 g/dL). These patients were referred for anemia workups, which showed that 33 patients had iron-deficiency anemia, and 25 had anemia from other causes.

Preoperative anemia management for the iron-deficient patients included oral iron for seven patients, intravenous (IV) iron with or without folate for 20 patients, and oral folate with or without vitamin B12 for five patients. One iron-deficient patient could not have surgery delayed for anemia management.

Of the iron-replete patients, one received oral iron, 17 received folate with or without B12, and seven patients were not treated for anemia.

One iron-deficient patient had a reaction to the infusion and did not receive a scheduled second dose due to the need for immediate surgery. A second patient scheduled for IV iron and folate broke an arm and therefore missed an IV infusion appointment. No other complications or reactions occurred.

Results

The researchers compared the 58 patients from the pilot program to control subjects—patients who underwent cardiac surgery from March through July 2015, matched by age, sex, and procedures.

The anemia management group received 10 red blood cell (RBC) units intraoperatively, compared to 68 intraoperative RBC units for controls. The total number of postoperative RBC units was 13 and 22, respectively.

The rate of RBC transfusions was 24% in the anemia management group and 60% in controls (P<0.0001). The average RBC units per patient was 0.4 and 2.07, respectively (P<0.0001).

Patients in the anemia management program also had significantly higher day-of-surgery hemoglobin than controls—11.01 and 10.16 g/dL, respectively (P<0.001).

The program provided an average per-patient savings in acquisition costs of $367.40, an average transfusion cost savings of $1,837, and a total cost savings of $106,546 over the life of the program.

The key to success of a similar program is “to make sure you do your homework,” Cahill said.

Specifically, she recommended feasibility studies, evaluation of the potential impact of infusions on the service, work flow analyses, and cost analyses. It’s also important to get high-level administrative support as well as buy-in from surgeons and patients, she added.

Future studies should include assessment of patient outcomes, safety, and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, Cahill emphasized.

This study was internally funded. Cahill reported no conflicts of interest.

*The data in the presentation differ from the abstract.

Photo by Neil Osterweil

BOSTON—Results of a pilot program suggest preoperative management of anemia can reduce transfusion rates and cut costs, but the effect on patient outcomes isn’t clear.

For this program, anemic patients received dietary guidance and supplementation prior to surgery.

This increased day-of-surgery hemoglobin levels, reduced intraoperative and postoperative transfusions, and resulted in a cost savings of more than $100,000 over the life of the program.

Christine M. Cahill, BSN, MS, RN, of the University of Rochester and Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, New York, presented these results at AABB 2018 (abstract PBM4-ST4-22*).

“Anemia has been thought of as a relatively benign thing our patients live with, traditionally, but what we have been finding lately is that anemia is actually more serious than we once thought and is an independent risk factor for hospitalization, readmission, increased patient length of stay, loss of function, and diminished quality of life,” Cahill said.

She added that anemia also increases the likelihood that a patient will require transfusions.

The pilot program was implemented with this in mind. The program, which ran from February 2016 through September 2017, was designed to test the feasibility of diagnosing anemia during a cardiology consult visit and implementing an anemia management plan.

During the study period, 240 patients presenting for elective cardiac surgery were screened for anemia, and 58 were diagnosed as anemic (hemoglobin <12 g/dL). These patients were referred for anemia workups, which showed that 33 patients had iron-deficiency anemia, and 25 had anemia from other causes.

Preoperative anemia management for the iron-deficient patients included oral iron for seven patients, intravenous (IV) iron with or without folate for 20 patients, and oral folate with or without vitamin B12 for five patients. One iron-deficient patient could not have surgery delayed for anemia management.

Of the iron-replete patients, one received oral iron, 17 received folate with or without B12, and seven patients were not treated for anemia.

One iron-deficient patient had a reaction to the infusion and did not receive a scheduled second dose due to the need for immediate surgery. A second patient scheduled for IV iron and folate broke an arm and therefore missed an IV infusion appointment. No other complications or reactions occurred.

Results

The researchers compared the 58 patients from the pilot program to control subjects—patients who underwent cardiac surgery from March through July 2015, matched by age, sex, and procedures.

The anemia management group received 10 red blood cell (RBC) units intraoperatively, compared to 68 intraoperative RBC units for controls. The total number of postoperative RBC units was 13 and 22, respectively.

The rate of RBC transfusions was 24% in the anemia management group and 60% in controls (P<0.0001). The average RBC units per patient was 0.4 and 2.07, respectively (P<0.0001).

Patients in the anemia management program also had significantly higher day-of-surgery hemoglobin than controls—11.01 and 10.16 g/dL, respectively (P<0.001).

The program provided an average per-patient savings in acquisition costs of $367.40, an average transfusion cost savings of $1,837, and a total cost savings of $106,546 over the life of the program.

The key to success of a similar program is “to make sure you do your homework,” Cahill said.

Specifically, she recommended feasibility studies, evaluation of the potential impact of infusions on the service, work flow analyses, and cost analyses. It’s also important to get high-level administrative support as well as buy-in from surgeons and patients, she added.

Future studies should include assessment of patient outcomes, safety, and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, Cahill emphasized.

This study was internally funded. Cahill reported no conflicts of interest.

*The data in the presentation differ from the abstract.

Photo by Neil Osterweil

BOSTON—Results of a pilot program suggest preoperative management of anemia can reduce transfusion rates and cut costs, but the effect on patient outcomes isn’t clear.

For this program, anemic patients received dietary guidance and supplementation prior to surgery.

This increased day-of-surgery hemoglobin levels, reduced intraoperative and postoperative transfusions, and resulted in a cost savings of more than $100,000 over the life of the program.

Christine M. Cahill, BSN, MS, RN, of the University of Rochester and Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, New York, presented these results at AABB 2018 (abstract PBM4-ST4-22*).

“Anemia has been thought of as a relatively benign thing our patients live with, traditionally, but what we have been finding lately is that anemia is actually more serious than we once thought and is an independent risk factor for hospitalization, readmission, increased patient length of stay, loss of function, and diminished quality of life,” Cahill said.

She added that anemia also increases the likelihood that a patient will require transfusions.

The pilot program was implemented with this in mind. The program, which ran from February 2016 through September 2017, was designed to test the feasibility of diagnosing anemia during a cardiology consult visit and implementing an anemia management plan.

During the study period, 240 patients presenting for elective cardiac surgery were screened for anemia, and 58 were diagnosed as anemic (hemoglobin <12 g/dL). These patients were referred for anemia workups, which showed that 33 patients had iron-deficiency anemia, and 25 had anemia from other causes.

Preoperative anemia management for the iron-deficient patients included oral iron for seven patients, intravenous (IV) iron with or without folate for 20 patients, and oral folate with or without vitamin B12 for five patients. One iron-deficient patient could not have surgery delayed for anemia management.

Of the iron-replete patients, one received oral iron, 17 received folate with or without B12, and seven patients were not treated for anemia.

One iron-deficient patient had a reaction to the infusion and did not receive a scheduled second dose due to the need for immediate surgery. A second patient scheduled for IV iron and folate broke an arm and therefore missed an IV infusion appointment. No other complications or reactions occurred.

Results

The researchers compared the 58 patients from the pilot program to control subjects—patients who underwent cardiac surgery from March through July 2015, matched by age, sex, and procedures.

The anemia management group received 10 red blood cell (RBC) units intraoperatively, compared to 68 intraoperative RBC units for controls. The total number of postoperative RBC units was 13 and 22, respectively.

The rate of RBC transfusions was 24% in the anemia management group and 60% in controls (P<0.0001). The average RBC units per patient was 0.4 and 2.07, respectively (P<0.0001).

Patients in the anemia management program also had significantly higher day-of-surgery hemoglobin than controls—11.01 and 10.16 g/dL, respectively (P<0.001).

The program provided an average per-patient savings in acquisition costs of $367.40, an average transfusion cost savings of $1,837, and a total cost savings of $106,546 over the life of the program.

The key to success of a similar program is “to make sure you do your homework,” Cahill said.

Specifically, she recommended feasibility studies, evaluation of the potential impact of infusions on the service, work flow analyses, and cost analyses. It’s also important to get high-level administrative support as well as buy-in from surgeons and patients, she added.

Future studies should include assessment of patient outcomes, safety, and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, Cahill emphasized.

This study was internally funded. Cahill reported no conflicts of interest.

*The data in the presentation differ from the abstract.

Photo by Neil Osterweil

BOSTON—A blood management program for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) can reduce inappropriate transfusions and costs without compromising patient outcomes, a new study suggests.

Researchers retrospectively compared outcomes before and after implementation of a patient blood management (PBM) program at a single institution.

After the program was implemented, the number of transfusions and the units transfused declined without affecting patient mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates, or other transfusion-related complications.

In addition, the program saved the hospital more than $600,000 over a year.

Nilesh Jambhekar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, reported these results in a presentation at AABB 2018 (abstract PBM3-ST4-22*).

Study design

Dr. Jambhekar and his colleagues looked at blood product use both before and after the Mayo Clinic started a PBM program that included emphasis on AABB best practice guidelines and electronic clinical-decision support for transfusion orders.

The researchers evaluated the frequency and proportion of red blood cell (RBC) and platelet transfusions, total transfusion quantities, transfusions that occurred outside of the clinical guidelines, and the activity-based costs of transfusions.

Dr. Jambhekar acknowledged that the study relied on rigid hemoglobin and platelet thresholds when considering transfusions conducted outside of the guidelines, defined as RBCs administered for hemoglobin values greater than 7 g/dL and platelet transfusions for platelet counts greater than 10 x 10⁹/L.

He noted, however, that the researchers conducted sensitivity analyses to account for exceptions such as patients with coronary disease or neutropenic fever.

The patient-centered outcomes the researchers evaluated included mortality, hospital and ICU admission rates, transfusion reactions, cerebrovascular and coronary ischemic events, and infections.

The study included data on 360 adults older than 18 who underwent HSCT in 2013, before the PBM program was implemented, and 368 transplanted in 2015, after implementation.

In each cohort, patients were followed out to 90 days after transplant.

Results

The total number of platelet units transfused dropped from 1,660 pre-PBM program to 1,417 post-PBM implementation. The total number of RBC units dropped from 1,158 to 826.

The researchers also saw changes in the proportions of inappropriate (outside guidelines) transfusions between the two time periods.

In 2013, 94.2% of RBC transfusions occurred outside the guidelines, compared with 35.4% in 2015 (P<0.0001). Similarly, the proportion of inappropriate platelet transfusions declined from 73.4% to 48.7% over the same time period (P<0.0001).

In addition, all-cause mortality at 3 months was significantly lower after the PBM program was introduced. The 3-month mortality rate was 30.7% for the 2013 cohort and 20.2% for the 2015 cohort (P=0.001).

Dr. Jambhekar noted that, in a multivariable analysis accounting for baseline differences between the groups, mortality for patients treated before the PBM program remained significantly higher, with an odds ratio of 1.85 (P=0.0008).

Neither hospital nor ICU admission within 30 days differed significantly between the groups, and there were no significant between-group differences in hospital or ICU lengths of stay.

Likewise, there were no significant between-group differences in myocardial infarctions, cerebrovascular events, sepsis, and febrile or allergic transfusion reactions.

Dr. Jambhekar noted that this study was retrospective in design and therefore could not fully account for potential confounders. It’s also unclear whether the results could be generalized for adoption by other institutions.

“In general, PBM implementation is probably helpful in reducing both platelet and PRBC [packed red blood cell] utilization, but it’s not an easy thing to do,” Dr. Jambhekar said.

“It requires institutional buy-in and key players to make it happen. Ongoing PBM-related activities like surveillance, education, and clinical decision feedback are critical to maintaining success that we’ve had.”

This study was internally funded. Dr. Jambhekar reported having nothing to disclose.

*Data presented differ from the abstract.

Photo by Neil Osterweil

BOSTON—A blood management program for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) can reduce inappropriate transfusions and costs without compromising patient outcomes, a new study suggests.

Researchers retrospectively compared outcomes before and after implementation of a patient blood management (PBM) program at a single institution.

After the program was implemented, the number of transfusions and the units transfused declined without affecting patient mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates, or other transfusion-related complications.

In addition, the program saved the hospital more than $600,000 over a year.

Nilesh Jambhekar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, reported these results in a presentation at AABB 2018 (abstract PBM3-ST4-22*).

Study design

Dr. Jambhekar and his colleagues looked at blood product use both before and after the Mayo Clinic started a PBM program that included emphasis on AABB best practice guidelines and electronic clinical-decision support for transfusion orders.

The researchers evaluated the frequency and proportion of red blood cell (RBC) and platelet transfusions, total transfusion quantities, transfusions that occurred outside of the clinical guidelines, and the activity-based costs of transfusions.

Dr. Jambhekar acknowledged that the study relied on rigid hemoglobin and platelet thresholds when considering transfusions conducted outside of the guidelines, defined as RBCs administered for hemoglobin values greater than 7 g/dL and platelet transfusions for platelet counts greater than 10 x 10⁹/L.

He noted, however, that the researchers conducted sensitivity analyses to account for exceptions such as patients with coronary disease or neutropenic fever.

The patient-centered outcomes the researchers evaluated included mortality, hospital and ICU admission rates, transfusion reactions, cerebrovascular and coronary ischemic events, and infections.

The study included data on 360 adults older than 18 who underwent HSCT in 2013, before the PBM program was implemented, and 368 transplanted in 2015, after implementation.

In each cohort, patients were followed out to 90 days after transplant.

Results

The total number of platelet units transfused dropped from 1,660 pre-PBM program to 1,417 post-PBM implementation. The total number of RBC units dropped from 1,158 to 826.

The researchers also saw changes in the proportions of inappropriate (outside guidelines) transfusions between the two time periods.

In 2013, 94.2% of RBC transfusions occurred outside the guidelines, compared with 35.4% in 2015 (P<0.0001). Similarly, the proportion of inappropriate platelet transfusions declined from 73.4% to 48.7% over the same time period (P<0.0001).

In addition, all-cause mortality at 3 months was significantly lower after the PBM program was introduced. The 3-month mortality rate was 30.7% for the 2013 cohort and 20.2% for the 2015 cohort (P=0.001).

Dr. Jambhekar noted that, in a multivariable analysis accounting for baseline differences between the groups, mortality for patients treated before the PBM program remained significantly higher, with an odds ratio of 1.85 (P=0.0008).

Neither hospital nor ICU admission within 30 days differed significantly between the groups, and there were no significant between-group differences in hospital or ICU lengths of stay.

Likewise, there were no significant between-group differences in myocardial infarctions, cerebrovascular events, sepsis, and febrile or allergic transfusion reactions.

Dr. Jambhekar noted that this study was retrospective in design and therefore could not fully account for potential confounders. It’s also unclear whether the results could be generalized for adoption by other institutions.

“In general, PBM implementation is probably helpful in reducing both platelet and PRBC [packed red blood cell] utilization, but it’s not an easy thing to do,” Dr. Jambhekar said.

“It requires institutional buy-in and key players to make it happen. Ongoing PBM-related activities like surveillance, education, and clinical decision feedback are critical to maintaining success that we’ve had.”

This study was internally funded. Dr. Jambhekar reported having nothing to disclose.

*Data presented differ from the abstract.

Photo by Neil Osterweil

BOSTON—A blood management program for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) can reduce inappropriate transfusions and costs without compromising patient outcomes, a new study suggests.

Researchers retrospectively compared outcomes before and after implementation of a patient blood management (PBM) program at a single institution.

After the program was implemented, the number of transfusions and the units transfused declined without affecting patient mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates, or other transfusion-related complications.

In addition, the program saved the hospital more than $600,000 over a year.

Nilesh Jambhekar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, reported these results in a presentation at AABB 2018 (abstract PBM3-ST4-22*).

Study design

Dr. Jambhekar and his colleagues looked at blood product use both before and after the Mayo Clinic started a PBM program that included emphasis on AABB best practice guidelines and electronic clinical-decision support for transfusion orders.

The researchers evaluated the frequency and proportion of red blood cell (RBC) and platelet transfusions, total transfusion quantities, transfusions that occurred outside of the clinical guidelines, and the activity-based costs of transfusions.

Dr. Jambhekar acknowledged that the study relied on rigid hemoglobin and platelet thresholds when considering transfusions conducted outside of the guidelines, defined as RBCs administered for hemoglobin values greater than 7 g/dL and platelet transfusions for platelet counts greater than 10 x 10⁹/L.

He noted, however, that the researchers conducted sensitivity analyses to account for exceptions such as patients with coronary disease or neutropenic fever.

The patient-centered outcomes the researchers evaluated included mortality, hospital and ICU admission rates, transfusion reactions, cerebrovascular and coronary ischemic events, and infections.

The study included data on 360 adults older than 18 who underwent HSCT in 2013, before the PBM program was implemented, and 368 transplanted in 2015, after implementation.

In each cohort, patients were followed out to 90 days after transplant.

Results

The total number of platelet units transfused dropped from 1,660 pre-PBM program to 1,417 post-PBM implementation. The total number of RBC units dropped from 1,158 to 826.

The researchers also saw changes in the proportions of inappropriate (outside guidelines) transfusions between the two time periods.

In 2013, 94.2% of RBC transfusions occurred outside the guidelines, compared with 35.4% in 2015 (P<0.0001). Similarly, the proportion of inappropriate platelet transfusions declined from 73.4% to 48.7% over the same time period (P<0.0001).

In addition, all-cause mortality at 3 months was significantly lower after the PBM program was introduced. The 3-month mortality rate was 30.7% for the 2013 cohort and 20.2% for the 2015 cohort (P=0.001).

Dr. Jambhekar noted that, in a multivariable analysis accounting for baseline differences between the groups, mortality for patients treated before the PBM program remained significantly higher, with an odds ratio of 1.85 (P=0.0008).

Neither hospital nor ICU admission within 30 days differed significantly between the groups, and there were no significant between-group differences in hospital or ICU lengths of stay.

Likewise, there were no significant between-group differences in myocardial infarctions, cerebrovascular events, sepsis, and febrile or allergic transfusion reactions.

Dr. Jambhekar noted that this study was retrospective in design and therefore could not fully account for potential confounders. It’s also unclear whether the results could be generalized for adoption by other institutions.

“In general, PBM implementation is probably helpful in reducing both platelet and PRBC [packed red blood cell] utilization, but it’s not an easy thing to do,” Dr. Jambhekar said.

“It requires institutional buy-in and key players to make it happen. Ongoing PBM-related activities like surveillance, education, and clinical decision feedback are critical to maintaining success that we’ve had.”

This study was internally funded. Dr. Jambhekar reported having nothing to disclose.

*Data presented differ from the abstract.