Mononuclear cell collection for extracorporeal photopheresis: Concentrate characteristics for off-line UV-A irradiation procedure

Recent insights into extracorporeal photopheresis for graft-versus-host disease

INTRODUCTION

Extracorporeal Photopheresis (ECP) may be considered the unique large-scale cell therapy currently available. It is currently employed mainly as second-line treatment, especially in steroid-resistant or steroid-dependent Graft versus Host Disease (GvHD) with good results and very few limitations.

AREAS COVERED

Many points need to be clarified regarding the ECP mechanism of action, that conditions the lack of uniqueness among the different centers, essentially cycle frequency, treatment duration, and the number of cells to be treated to obtain a response, according to the organs involved. Moreover, reliable biomarkers for prediction of response are lacking, as well as the best pharmacological combination. We will focus on the recent advances concerning ECP for GvHD treatment. We performed a systematic literature research in Pubmed and Embase as of September 2023.

EXPERT OPINION

The recent studies on ECP mechanism of action along with the promising biomarkers of response, and the synergistic benefit of ECP in association with the new drugs render this therapy an important weapon for GvHD resistant to conventional treatment and can be proposed as a valid first-line therapy option with promising results. We believe that it should be used early in all categories of patients, considering its high safety profile.

Inline and offline extracorporeal photopheresis: Device performance, cell yields and clinical response

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is an effective treatment for graft-vs-host-disease (GvHD). Photopheresis can be performed in offline or inline method. The first uses a conventional cell separator for collection of mononuclear-cells that are photoactivated by a separate device and manually reinfused; the second one involves a dedicated device performing the entire procedure (collection, photoactivation and reinfusion).

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The objective was to compare the two methods and cell product features to highlight key process, devices performance, and to evaluate ECP clinical response. Patients developing steroid-resistant GvHD underwent ECP as second-line treatment using either inline (Therakos CellEx) or offline system (Terumo BCT Spectra or Optia and UVA PIT system). Data about patients' features, pre-apheresis blood-count, cell product characteristics and clinical response were collected for analysis.

RESULTS

We evaluated 494 procedures performed on 28 patients from April 2018 to March 2019. The offline procedure allows to achieve greater cell yield, it is characterized by larger processed blood volume, longer runtime, and higher ACD consumption. The inline procedure shows shorter runtime, high mononuclear-cells percentage and low percentage of granulocytes in cell product. We observed a significant difference in cell yields between inline and offline system; furthermore we did not find a significant relationship between cell dose and clinical response.

CONCLUSION

Inline ECP is fast, highly automated and productive, making it particularly suitable for ECP treatments. Offline ECP collects high cell yields implying longer procedure and greater operator intervention. Our study did not find a significant relationship between cell dose and GVHD response.

Inline extracorporeal photopheresis: evaluation of cell collection efficiency

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) therapy has proved to be an effective and safe treatment for graft-versus-host-disease (GvHD), an important complication after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In 2016, we acquired Therakos CellEx, a dedicated inline ECP device to accomplish a significant increase in ECP activity. In literature, we found few data reporting CellEx performance evaluated in terms of collection efficiency to qualify the device. Hence, we decided to collect and analyze our data in order to build a reference in terms of expected results of the procedure. Here we report our data of ECP performed using CellEx in a 12-month period focusing on collection efficiency assessment, as well as procedural and apheretic product characteristics.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We collected data of patients undergoing ECP from April 2018 to March 2019 using CellEx in order to evaluate collection efficiency.

RESULTS

Between April 2018 and March 2019 we treated 28 adult patients affected by GvHD performing 319 ECP using CellEx. CellEx mononuclear cell product was characterized by high mononuclear cell percentage and low percentage of granulocytes, resulting particularly suitable for ECP treatments. Median collection efficiency for total nucleated cells and for mononuclear cells was 31.2% and 62.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Collection efficiency of CellEx was comparable to that usually obtained by cell separators designed for cell collection and was comparable to that of offline systems. Our results provide a detailed performance evaluation for inline ECP system users.