Methodologic issues in the use of bleeding as an outcome in transfusion medicine studies

What counts as patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU? A mixed-methods study protocol of patient and family perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding is conventionally defined as bleeding accompanied by haemodynamic changes, requiring red blood cell transfusions or other invasive interventions. However, it is unclear if this clinical definition reflects patient values and preferences. This protocol describes a study to elicit views from patients and families regarding features, tests, and treatments for upper gastrointestinal bleeding that are important to them.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a sequential mixed-methods qualitative-dominant multi-centre study with an instrument-building aim. We developed orientation tools and educational materials in partnership with patients and family members, including a slide deck and executive summary. We will invite intensive care unit (ICU) survivors and family members of former ICU patients to participate. Following a virtual interactive presentation, participants will share their perspectives in an interview or focus group. Qualitative data will be analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis, wherein codes will be derived directly from the data rather than using preconceived categories. Concurrent data collection and analysis will occur. Quantitative data will include self-reported demographic characteristics. This study will synthesise the values and perspectives of patients and family members to create a new trial outcome for a randomised trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis. This study is planned for May 2022 to August 2023. The pilot work was completed in Spring 2021.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has ethics approval from McMaster University and the University of Calgary. Findings will be disseminated via manuscript and through incorporation as a secondary trial outcome on stress ulcer prophylaxis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05506150.

How I use platelet transfusions

Platelet transfusions are commonly administered for the prevention or treatment of bleeding in patients with acquired thrombocytopenia across a range of clinical contexts. Recent data, including randomized trials, have highlighted uncertainties in the risk-benefit balance of this therapy, which is the subject of this review. Hemovigilance systems report that platelets are the most frequently implicated component in transfusion reactions. There is considerable variation in platelet count increment after platelet transfusion, and limited evidence of efficacy for clinical outcomes, including prevention of bleeding. Bleeding events commonly occur despite the different policies for platelet transfusion prophylaxis. The underlying mechanisms of harm reported in randomized trials may be related to the role of platelets beyond hemostasis, including mediating inflammation. Research supports the implementation of a restrictive platelet transfusion policy. Research is needed to better understand the impact of platelet donation characteristics on outcomes, and to determine the optimal thresholds for platelet transfusion before invasive procedures or major surgery (eg, laparotomy). Platelet transfusion policies should move toward a risk-adapted approach that does not focus solely on platelet count.

Definition of a critical bleed in patients with immune thrombocytopenia: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Platelet Immunology

BACKGROUND

Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an autoimmune disease characterized by low platelet counts and increased risk of bleeding. In preparation for an upcoming guideline, the ITP Emergency Management Guideline Panel, including clinical experts in hematology, emergency medicine, research methodology, and patient representatives, identified the need for a standardized definition of a critical ITP bleed. The goal of the definition was to distinguish critical bleeds from bleeds that may not require urgent treatment, typically in the context of severe thrombocytopenia.

METHODS

The panel met in person and virtually to achieve consensus on the criteria for critical bleeding events among patients with ITP. Existing ITP bleeding scores and published definitions of major bleeds in patients receiving anticoagulation informed the definition of a critical ITP bleed. The Platelet Immunology Scientific Standardization Committee (SSC) of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis endorsed the definition.

RESULTS

A critical ITP bleed was defined as: (a) a bleed in a critical anatomical site including intracranial, intraspinal, intraocular, retroperitoneal, pericardial, or intramuscular with compartment syndrome; or (2) an ongoing bleed that results in hemodynamic instability or respiratory compromise.

CONCLUSION

The definition of a critical ITP bleed was developed by the ITP Emergency Management Guideline Panel and endorsed by the Platelet Immunology SSC. It incorporates both anatomic and physiologic risk and pertains to patients with confirmed or suspected ITP who typically have severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count below 20 × 109 /L).

Effectiveness and Safety of Romiplostim Among Patients with Newly Diagnosed, Persistent and Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia in European Clinical Practice

INTRODUCTION

Romiplostim has been approved in Europe since 2009 to treat patients with chronic primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Using real-world data from seven European countries, we measured the effectiveness and safety outcomes within 24 weeks following romiplostim initiation by duration of ITP: less than 3 months ("newly diagnosed"), 3-12 months ("persistent"), and more than 12 months ("chronic").

METHODS

Adults with ITP and ≥ 1 romiplostim administration between 2009 and 2012 were included. Endpoints included durable platelet response, median platelet count, rescue therapy, bleeding and adverse events. We used inverse probability of censoring weighted estimators to estimate cumulative risk of each outcome. There were 64 newly diagnosed, 50 persistent, and 226 chronic ITP patients at romiplostim initiation.

RESULTS

Durable platelet response at 24 weeks ranged from 32% [confidence interval (CI): 18-46%] in newly diagnosed patients to 53% (CI 37-68%) in persistent patients. Median platelet count during follow-up ranged from 88 (CI 80-96) × 10⁹/L in chronic patients to 131 (CI 102-160) × 10⁹/L in newly diagnosed patients.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of ITP duration, over half of patients discontinued concomitant ITP medications. Few adverse events were observed. Although only approved for chronic patients, estimates of the romiplostim treatment effect were similar across patients being managed in European clinical practice, regardless of ITP duration at romiplostim initiation.

Bleeding in Critically Ill Children-Review of Literature, Knowledge Gaps, and Suggestions for Future Investigation

Clinically significant bleeding complicates up to 20% of admissions to the intensive care unit in adults and is associated with severe physiologic derangements, requirement for significant interventions and worse outcome. There is a paucity of published data on bleeding in critically ill children. In this manuscript, we will provide an overview of the epidemiology and characteristics of bleeding in critically ill children, address the association between bleeding and clinical outcomes, describe the current definitions of bleeding and their respective limitations, and finally provide an overview of current knowledge gaps and suggested areas for future research.

Exploring the components of bleeding outcomes in transfusion trials for patients with hematologic malignancy

Clinically significant bleeding in patients with hematologic malignancies is a heterogeneous composite outcome currently defined as World Health Organization (WHO) bleeding Grades 2, 3, and 4. However, the clinical significance of some minor bleeds categorized as WHO Grades 1 and 2 remains controversial. We analyzed the number and frequency of individual signs and symptoms of WHO Grades 1 and 2 bleeds and explored their association with more severe incident bleeds graded as WHO Grades 3 and 4.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We aggregated daily bleeding assessment data from three randomized controlled trials conducted in patients with hematologic malignancies that used bleeding as an outcome. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to identify signs and symptoms categorized as WHO Grades 1 and 2 bleeds that were associated with more severe bleeds (Grades 3 and 4).

RESULTS

We collected data from 315 patients (n = 5476 daily bleeding assessments; 3383 [61.8%] with a bleed documented). A total of 98.3% (3326/3383) were Grade 1 and 2 bleeds and 1.7% (57/3383) were Grades 3 and 4. Grade 1 and 2 bleeds were composed of 20 different bleeding signs and symptoms. Hematuria (hazard ratio, 16.1; 95% confidence interval, 4.4-59.2; P < .0001) was associated with incident Grade 3 or 4 bleeds.

CONCLUSION

In patients with hematologic malignancy, only hematuria (microscopic and/or macroscopic) was associated with more severe incident bleeds. This findings require validation in independent data sets.

Bleeding Assessment Scale in Critically Ill Children (BASIC): Physician-Driven Diagnostic Criteria for Bleeding Severity

OBJECTIVE

Although bleeding frequently occurs in critical illness, no published definition to date describes the severity of bleeding accurately in critically ill children. We sought to develop diagnostic criteria for bleeding severity in critically ill children.

DESIGN

Delphi consensus process of multidisciplinary experts in bleeding/hemostasis in critically ill children, followed by prospective cohort study to test internal validity.

SETTING

PICU.

PATIENTS

Children at risk of bleeding in PICUs.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four physicians worldwide (10 on a steering committee and 14 on an expert committee) from disciplines related to bleeding participated in development of a definition for clinically relevant bleeding. A provisional definition was created from 35 descriptors of bleeding. Using a modified online Delphi process and conference calls, the final definition resulted after seven rounds of voting. The Bleeding Assessment Scale in Critically Ill Children definition categorizes bleeding into severe, moderate, and minimal, using organ dysfunction, proportional changes in vital signs, anemia, and quantifiable bleeding. The criteria do not include treatments such as red cell transfusion or surgical interventions performed in response to the bleed. The definition was prospectively applied to 40 critically ill children with 46 distinct bleeding episodes. The kappa statistic between the two observers was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.57-0.91) representing substantial inter-rater reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

The Bleeding Assessment Scale in Critically Ill Children definition of clinically relevant bleeding severity is the first physician-driven definition applicable for bleeding in critically ill children derived via international expert consensus. The Bleeding Assessment Scale in Critically Ill Children definition includes clear criteria for bleeding severity in critically ill children. We anticipate that it will facilitate clinical communication among pediatric intensivists pertaining to bleeding and serve in the design of future epidemiologic studies if it is validated with patient outcomes.

PLATON: use of romiplostim to treat chronic primary immune thrombocytopenia

Chronic primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an autoimmune disease involving the formation of antibodies to thrombocytes, leading to increased platelet destruction and chronic thrombocytopenia. Additionally, impaired platelet production is due to relative thrombopoietin deficiency. Romiplostim, a thrombopoietin receptor agonist, normalized platelet counts in affected patients in randomized controlled trials and real-world observational studies. The present study collected real-world practice data from Central and Eastern Europe, i.e. Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Russia, and Czech Republic, between December 2010 and July 2017. This was an ambidirectional observational, noninterventional cohort study within the approved romiplostim indication. One-hundred patients were analyzed. Prior to romiplostim start, 98% had received other ITP medications and, in the prior 6 months, 40% had experienced bleeding events. Romiplostim was started 1.92 years (median) after ITP diagnosis. The median mean on-study dose was 2.62 µg/kg/week. During romiplostim treatment, platelet counts rapidly normalized to >50 × 109/L, 20% of patients experienced bleeding events (none grade 3/4), and 13% required splenectomy. At the end of study, 25% of patients were in remission. One patient experienced serious adverse drug reactions (thrombosis, dysphagia), none were fatal. In conclusion, romiplostim dosing, effectiveness and safety in these unselected ITP patients seemed comparable with observations in clinical trials and similarly designed observational studies.

Long-term follow-up for up to 5 years on the risk of leukaemic progression in thrombocytopenic patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes treated with romiplostim or placebo in a randomised double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for thrombocytopenia in myelodysplastic syndromes are scarce. As described previously in a randomised phase 2 study (n=250), 58 weeks of romiplostim treatment in patients with International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS)-defined lower-risk (low-risk or intermediate-1 risk) myelodysplastic syndromes led to reduced platelet transfusions (p<0·0001) and increased International Working Group-defined haematological improvement-platelet rates (p<0·0001) versus placebo. However, the study drug was discontinued because of the potential risk for progression to or incorrect diagnosis or treatment for acute myeloid leukaemia, based on an acute myeloid leukaemia interim hazard ratio (HR) of 2·5; the subsequent 58-week acute myeloid leukaemia HR was 1·2 (95% CI 0·4-3·8).

METHODS

This study is a 5-year follow-up of a phase 2, multicentre, double-blind trial of romiplostim treatment in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Eligible patients were recruited at 109 centres in North America, Europe, Russia, and Australia, were aged 18-90 years, and had platelets of 20 × 10⁹ per L or less with or without a history of bleeding or 50 × 10⁹ platelets per L or less with a history of bleeding. Patients were randomly assigned by interactive voice response system with stratification by baseline platelet count (≥20 × 10⁹ per L or <20 × 10⁹ per L) and IPSS risk (low or intermediate-1) to receive either placebo or 750 μg romiplostim subcutaneously once per week for 58 weeks. The primary outcomes for this long-term follow-up were survival and progression to acute myeloid leukaemia. Progression to acute myeloid leukaemia was defined as either 20% blasts or more after 4 weeks from romiplostim discontinuation; as per pathology; or by initiation of antileukaemia treatment. The primary outcome was assessed per protocol in all patients with available data. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00614523.

FINDINGS

Patients were recruited from July 21, 2008, to Dec 16, 2010. 167 patients were assigned to receive romiplostim treatment and 83 were assigned to receive placebo. 210 (84%) of 250 patients entered the 5-year long-term follow-up (139 patients in the romiplostim group and 83 in the placebo group). At the end of follow-up, proportions of patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (20 [12%] of 167 in the romiplostim group vs nine [11%] of 83 in the placebo group; HR 1·06 [95% CI 0·48-2·33]; p=0·88) and proportions who died (93 [56%] vs 54 [54%]; HR 1·03 [0·72-1·47]; p=0·89) were not significantly different between the two groups.

INTERPRETATION

Following the decision to stop the study drug, 5-year long-term follow-up HRs for transformation to acute myeloid leukaemia and HRs for death did not differ between patients treated with romiplostim and those treated with placebo, indicating that use of romiplostim is probably not associated with any increased risk of acute myeloid leukaemia or death, despite initial concerns.

FUNDING

Amgen Inc.

Alternatives, and adjuncts, to prophylactic platelet transfusion for people with haematological malignancies undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people with thrombocytopenia. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy since the mid-1970s, some areas continue to provoke debate especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether agents that can be used as alternatives, or adjuncts, to platelet transfusions for people with haematological malignancies undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation are safe and effective at preventing bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 11 bibliographic databases and four ongoing trials databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE (OvidSP, 1946 to 19 May 2016), Embase (OvidSP, 1974 to 19 May 2016), PubMed (e-publications only: searched 19 May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP and the ISRCTN Register (searched 19 May 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in people with haematological malignancies undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation who were allocated to either an alternative to platelet transfusion (artificial platelet substitutes, platelet-poor plasma, fibrinogen concentrate, recombinant activated factor VII, desmopressin (DDAVP), or thrombopoietin (TPO) mimetics) or a comparator (placebo, standard care or platelet transfusion). We excluded studies of antifibrinolytic drugs, as they were the focus of another review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened all electronically derived citations and abstracts of papers identified by the review search strategy. Two review authors assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 16 eligible trials. Four trials are ongoing and two have been completed but the results have not yet been published (trial completion dates: April 2012 to February 2017). Therefore, the review included 10 trials in eight references with 554 participants. Six trials (336 participants) only included participants with acute myeloid leukaemia undergoing intensive chemotherapy, two trials (38 participants) included participants with lymphoma undergoing intensive chemotherapy and two trials (180 participants) reported participants undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Men and women were equally well represented in the trials. The age range of participants included in the trials was from 16 years to 81 years. All trials took place in high-income countries. The manufacturers of the agent sponsored eight trials that were under investigation, and two trials did not report their source of funding.No trials assessed artificial platelet substitutes, fibrinogen concentrate, recombinant activated factor VII or desmopressin.Nine trials compared a TPO mimetic to placebo or standard care; seven of these used pegylated recombinant human megakaryocyte growth and differentiation factor (PEG-rHuMGDF) and two used recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO).One trial compared platelet-poor plasma to platelet transfusion.We considered that all the trials included in this review were at high risk of bias and meta-analysis was not possible in seven trials due to problems with the way data were reported.We are very uncertain whether TPO mimetics reduce the number of participants with any bleeding episode (odds ratio (OR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.62, one trial, 120 participants, very low quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether TPO mimetics reduce the risk of a life-threatening bleed after 30 days (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.06 to 33.14, three trials, 209 participants, very low quality evidence); or after 90 days (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.37, one trial, 120 participants, very low quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether TPO mimetics reduce platelet transfusion requirements after 30 days (mean difference -3.00 units, 95% CI -5.39 to -0.61, one trial, 120 participants, very low quality evidence). No deaths occurred in either group after 30 days (one trial, 120 participants, very low quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether TPO mimetics reduce all-cause mortality at 90 days (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 4.20, one trial, 120 participants, very low quality evidence). No thromboembolic events occurred for participants treated with TPO mimetics or control at 30 days (two trials, 209 participants, very low quality evidence). We found no trials that looked at: number of days on which bleeding occurred, time from randomisation to first bleed or quality of life.One trial with 18 participants compared platelet-poor plasma transfusion with platelet transfusion. We are very uncertain whether platelet-poor plasma reduces the number of participants with any bleeding episode (OR 16.00, 95% CI 1.32 to 194.62, one trial, 18 participants, very low quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether platelet-poor plasma reduces the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding (OR 4.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 28.40, one trial, 18 participants, very low quality evidence). We found no trials that looked at: number of days on which bleeding occurred, time from randomisation to first bleed, number of platelet transfusions, all-cause mortality, thromboembolic events or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine if platelet-poor plasma or TPO mimetics reduce bleeding for participants with haematological malignancies undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation. To detect a decrease in the proportion of participants with clinically significant bleeding from 12 in 100 to 6 in 100 would require a trial containing at least 708 participants (80% power, 5% significance). The six ongoing trials will provide additional information about the TPO mimetic comparison (424 participants) but this will still be underpowered to demonstrate this level of reduction in bleeding. None of the included or ongoing trials include children. There are no completed or ongoing trials assessing artificial platelet substitutes, fibrinogen concentrate, recombinant activated factor VII or desmopressin in people undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation for haematological malignancies.

Comparison of different platelet count thresholds to guide administration of prophylactic platelet transfusion for preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic due to bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: prophylactic versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. This review has now been split into four smaller reviews looking at these questions individually; this review compares prophylactic platelet transfusion thresholds.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether different platelet transfusion thresholds for administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding) affect the efficacy and safety of prophylactic platelet transfusions in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, 23 July 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in people with haematological disorders (receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT) that compared different thresholds for administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions (low trigger (5 x 10(9)/L); standard trigger (10 x 10(9)/L); higher trigger (20 x 10(9)/L, 30 x 10(9)/L, 50 x 10(9)/L); or alternative platelet trigger (for example platelet mass)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials met our predefined inclusion criteria and were included for analysis in the review (499 participants). All three trials compared a standard trigger (10 x 10(9)/L) versus a higher trigger (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L). None of the trials compared a low trigger versus a standard trigger or an alternative platelet trigger. The trials were conducted between 1991 and 2001 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations.The original review contained four trials (658 participants); in the previous update of this review we excluded one trial (159 participants) because fewer than 80% of participants had a haematological disorder. We identified no new trials in this update of the review.Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the included studies had some threats to validity.Three studies reported the number of participants with at least one clinically significant bleeding episode within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with a clinically significant bleeding episode between the standard and higher trigger groups (three studies; 499 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.90; low-quality evidence).One study reported the number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event (adjusted for repeated measures). There was no evidence of a difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between the standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 255 participants; relative proportion of days with World Health Organization Grade 2 or worse bleeding (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.48, P = 0.162; authors' own results; low-quality evidence).Two studies reported the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding. There was no evidence of any difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a standard trigger level and a higher trigger level (two studies; 421 participants; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.88; low-quality evidence).Only one study reported the time to first bleeding episode. There was no evidence of any difference in the time to the first bleeding episode between a standard trigger level and a higher trigger level (one study; 255 participants; hazard ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.91; low-quality evidence).Only one study reported on all-cause mortality within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no evidence of any difference in all-cause mortality between standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 255 participants; RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.81; low-quality evidence).Three studies reported on the number of platelet transfusions per participant. Two studies reported on the mean number of platelet transfusions per participant. There was a significant reduction in the number of platelet transfusions per participant in the standard trigger group (two studies, mean difference -2.09, 95% CI -3.20 to -0.99; low-quality evidence).One study reported on the number of transfusion reactions. There was no evidence to demonstrate any difference in transfusion reactions between the standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 79 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.09).None of the studies reported on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with haematological disorders who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT, we found low-quality evidence that a standard trigger level (10 x 10(9)/L) is associated with no increase in the risk of bleeding when compared to a higher trigger level (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L). There was low-quality evidence that a standard trigger level is associated with a decreased number of transfusion episodes when compared to a higher trigger level (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L).Findings from this review were based on three studies and 499 participants. Without further evidence, it is reasonable to continue with the current practice of administering prophylactic platelet transfusions using the standard trigger level (10 x 10(9)/L) in the absence of other risk factors for bleeding.

Different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusion for preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic due to bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: prophylactic versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. This review has now been split into four smaller reviews; this review compares different platelet transfusion doses.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusions (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding) affect their efficacy and safety in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy with or without haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in people with malignant haematological disorders or undergoing HSCT that compared different platelet component doses (low dose 1.1 x 10(11)/m(2) ± 25%, standard dose 2.2 x 10(11)/m(2) ± 25%, high dose 4.4 x 10(11)/m(2) ± 25%).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (1814 participants) in this review; six were conducted during one course of treatment (chemotherapy or HSCT).Overall the methodological quality of studies was low to moderate across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the included studies had some threats to validity.Five studies reported the number of participants with at least one clinically significant bleeding episode within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no difference in the number of participants with a clinically significant bleeding episode between the low-dose and standard-dose groups (four studies; 1170 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.13; moderate-quality evidence); low-dose and high-dose groups (one study; 849 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11; moderate-quality evidence); or high-dose and standard-dose groups (two studies; 951 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11; moderate-quality evidence).Three studies reported the number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event per participant. There was no difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between the low-dose and standard-dose groups (two studies; 230 participants; mean difference -0.17, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.17; low quality evidence). One study (855 participants) showed no difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between high-dose and standard-dose groups, or between low-dose and high-dose groups (849 participants).Three studies reported the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding. There was no difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a low-dose and a standard-dose platelet transfusion policy (three studies; 1059 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.92; low-quality evidence); low-dose and high-dose groups (one study; 849 participants; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.77; low-quality evidence); or high-dose and standard-dose groups (one study; 855 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.68; low-quality evidence).Two studies reported the time to first bleeding episodes; we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Both studies (959 participants) individually found that the time to first bleeding episode was either the same, or longer, in the low-dose group compared to the standard-dose group. One study (855 participants) found that the time to the first bleeding episode was the same in the high-dose group compared to the standard-dose group.Three studies reported all-cause mortality within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no difference in all-cause mortality between treatment arms (low-dose versus standard-dose: three studies; 1070 participants; RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.70 to 5.93; low-quality evidence; low-dose versus high-dose: one study; 849 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.54; low-quality evidence; and high-dose versus standard-dose: one study; 855 participants; RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.81; low-quality evidence).Six studies reported the number of platelet transfusions; we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Two studies (959 participants) out of three (1070 participants) found that a low-dose transfusion strategy led to more transfusion episodes than a standard-dose. One study (849 participants) found that a low-dose transfusion strategy led to more transfusion episodes than a high-dose strategy. One study (855 participants) out of three (1007 participants) found no difference in the number of platelet transfusions between the high-dose and standard-dose groups.One study reported on transfusion reactions. This study's authors suggested that a high-dose platelet transfusion strategy may lead to a higher rate of transfusion-related adverse events.None of the studies reported quality-of-life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In haematology patients who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT, we found no evidence to suggest that a low-dose platelet transfusion policy is associated with an increased bleeding risk compared to a standard-dose or high-dose policy, or that a high-dose platelet transfusion policy is associated with a decreased risk of bleeding when compared to a standard-dose policy.A low-dose platelet transfusion strategy leads to an increased number of transfusion episodes compared to a standard-dose strategy. A high-dose platelet transfusion strategy does not decrease the number of transfusion episodes per participant compared to a standard-dose regimen, and it may increase the number of transfusion-related adverse events.Findings from this review would suggest a change from current practice, with low-dose platelet transfusions used for people receiving in-patient treatment for their haematological disorder and high-dose platelet transfusion strategies not being used routinely.

A therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy for preventing bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients with bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004 and updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. We have now split this review into four smaller reviews looking at these questions individually; this review is the first part of the original review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given when patient bleeds) is as effective and safe as a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding, usually when the platelet count falls below a given trigger level) in patients with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent or treat bleeding in patients with malignant haematological disorders receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven RCTs that compared therapeutic platelet transfusions to prophylactic platelet transfusions in haematology patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT. One trial is still ongoing, leaving six trials eligible with a total of 1195 participants. These trials were conducted between 1978 and 2013 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations. We were able to critically appraise five of these studies, which contained separate data for each arm, and were unable to perform quantitative analysis on one study that did not report the numbers of participants in each treatment arm.Overall the quality of evidence per outcome was low to moderate according to the GRADE approach. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the studies identified had some threats to validity. We deemed only one study to be at low risk of bias in all domains other than blinding.Two RCTs (801 participants) reported at least one bleeding episode within 30 days of the start of the study. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to considerable statistical heterogeneity between studies. The statistical heterogeneity seen may relate to the different methods used in studies for the assessment and grading of bleeding. The underlying patient diagnostic and treatment categories also appeared to have some effect on bleeding risk. Individually these studies showed a similar effect, that a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion strategy was associated with an increased risk of clinically significant bleeding compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy. Number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event per participant was higher in the therapeutic-only group than in the prophylactic group (one RCT; 600 participants; mean difference 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.90; moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a therapeutic-only transfusion policy and a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 801 participants; risk ratio (RR) 4.91, 95% CI 0.86 to 28.12; low-quality evidence). Two RCTs (801 participants) reported time to first bleeding episode. As there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Both studies individually found that time to first bleeding episode was shorter in the therapeutic-only group compared with the prophylactic platelet transfusion group.There was insufficient evidence to determine any difference in all-cause mortality within 30 days of the start of the study using a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 629 participants). Mortality was a rare event, and therefore larger studies would be needed to establish the effect of these alternative strategies. There was a clear reduction in the number of platelet transfusions per participant in the therapeutic-only arm (two RCTs, 991 participants; standardised mean reduction of 0.50 platelet transfusions per participant, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.37; moderate-quality evidence). None of the studies reported quality of life. There was no evidence of any difference in the frequency of adverse events, such as transfusion reactions, between a therapeutic-only and prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 991 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.68), although the confidence intervals were wide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to moderate-grade evidence that a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy is associated with increased risk of bleeding when compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy in haematology patients who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT. There is insufficient evidence to determine any difference in mortality rates and no evidence of any difference in adverse events between a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy and a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy. A therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy is associated with a clear reduction in the number of platelet components administered.

Prophylactic platelet transfusions: should they be a treatment of the past?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

For decades, prophylactic platelet transfusions have been a standard practice for treatment-related thrombocytopenia in patients with hematologic malignancies, although evidence supporting this practice was limited. Two recent randomized controlled studies were carried out to challenge this practice by comparing prophylactic to therapeutic-only platelet transfusion strategies. This review compares and contrasts the study findings to provide further insight into the study conclusions and their application to practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Past studies exploring platelet transfusion in this patient population focused on identifying the optimal platelet threshold for transfusions and the minimum effective dose to achieve hemostasis. Balancing increased demand with limited supply has further necessitated determining if a therapeutic-only approach is as efficacious. This is especially pertinent given improved prognosis of hematologic malignancies because of novel therapies and better diagnostic technologies. Two large randomized controlled studies showed that therapeutic-only strategy reduces platelet utilization, but possibly at an increased risk of high-grade bleeding in certain patient groups.

SUMMARY

The majority of this adult patient population should continue to receive prophylactic platelet transfusions to prevent high-grade bleeding. Stable autologous stem cell transplant patients appear to be at a lower risk of thrombocytopenia-related bleeding and are candidates for therapeutic-only platelet transfusions in expert centers with careful monitoring.

Severe bleeding events in adults and children with primary immune thrombocytopenia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The burden of severe bleeding in adults and children with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) has not been established.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the frequency and severity of bleeding events in patients with ITP, and the methods used to measure bleeding in ITP studies.

PATIENTS/METHODS

We performed a systematic review of all prospective ITP studies that enrolled 20 or more patients. Two reviewers searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane registry up to May 2014. Overall weighted proportions were estimated using a random effects model. Measurement properties of bleeding assessment tools were evaluated.

RESULTS

We identified 118 studies that reported bleeding (n = 10 908 patients). Weighted proportions for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) were 1.4% for adults (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-2.1%) and 0.4% for children (95% CI, 0.2-0.7%; P < 0.01), most of whom had chronic ITP. The weighted proportion for severe (non-ICH) bleeding was 9.6% for adults (95% CI, 4.1-17.1%) and 20.2% for children (95% CI, 10.0-32.9%; P < 0.01) with newly-diagnosed or chronic ITP. Methods of reporting and definitions of severe bleeding were highly variable in primary studies. Two bleeding assessment tools (Buchanan 2002 for children; Page 2007 for adults) demonstrated adequate inter-rater reliability and validity in independent assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

ICH was more common in adults and tended to occur during chronic ITP; other severe bleeds were more common in children and occurred at all stages of disease. Reporting of non-ICH bleeding was variable across studies. Further attention to ITP-specific bleeding measurement in clinical trials is needed to improve standardization of this important outcome for patients.

Alternative agents versus prophylactic platelet transfusion for preventing bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To determine whether alternative agents (e.g. artificial platelet substitutes, platelet-poor plasma, fibrinogen, rFVIIa, thrombopoietin mimetics) are as effective and safe as the use of platelet transfusions for the prevention of bleeding (prophylactic platelet transfusion) in patients with haematological disorders who are undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation. Antifibrinolytics (lysine analogues) will not be included in this review because they have been the focus of another Cochrane review (Wardrop 2013).

A dynamic Mover-Stayer model for recurrent event processes subject to resolution

In studies of affective disorder, individuals are often observed to experience recurrent symptomatic exacerbations warranting hospitalization. Interest may lie in modeling the occurrence of such exacerbations over time and identifying associated risk factors. In some patients, recurrent exacerbations are temporally clustered following disease onset, but cease to occur after a period of time. We develop a dynamic Mover-Stayer model in which a canonical binary variable associated with each event indicates whether the underlying disease has resolved. An individual whose disease process has not resolved will experience events following a standard point process model governed by a latent intensity. When the disease process resolves, the complete data intensity becomes zero and no further event will occur. An expectation-maximization algorithm is described for parametric and semiparametric model fitting based on a discrete time dynamic Mover-Stayer model and a latent intensity-based model of the underlying point process.

Results of a randomized, double-blind study of romiplostim versus placebo in patients with low/intermediate-1-risk myelodysplastic syndrome and thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

Thrombocytopenia in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is associated with shortened survival and an increased risk of evolution to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In this study, the authors evaluated the efficacy of romiplostim in patients who had thrombocytopenia with low-risk/intermediate-1–risk MDS.

METHODS

Patients who had thrombocytopenia with low-risk/intermediate-1–risk MDS (N = 250) were randomized 2:1 to receive romiplostim or placebo weekly for 58 weeks.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint— the number of clinically significant bleeding events (CSBEs) per patient—had a hazard ratio for romiplostim:placebo of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.05; P = .13). CSBEs were reduced significantly in the romiplostim group for patients who had baseline platelet counts ≥20 × 10⁹/L (P < .0001). For patients who had baseline platelet counts <20 × 10⁹/L, there was no difference in the number of CSBEs, but the platelet transfusion rates were higher in the placebo group (P < .0001), which may have affected the overall CSBE results in this group with severe thrombocytopenia. The incidence of bleeding events was reduced significantly in the romiplostim group (relative risk, 0.92), as were protocol-defined platelet transfusions (relative risk, 0.77). Platelet response rates according to 2006 International Working Group criteria were higher for the group that received romiplostim (odds ratio, 15.6). On the basis of interim data, an independent data monitoring committee advised halting study drug because of concerns regarding excess blasts and AML rates with romiplostim (interim hazard ratio, 2.51). At 58 weeks, the AML rates were 6% in the romiplostim group and 4.9% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-3.84), and the overall survival rates were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Romiplostim treatment in patients with low-risk/intermediate-1–risk MDS increased platelet counts and decreased the number of bleeding events and platelet transfusions. Although study drug was discontinued because of an initial concern of AML risk, survival and AML rates were similar with romiplostim and placebo.

Different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusion for preventing bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To determine whether different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusions (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding) affect their efficacy and safety in preventing bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after chemotherapy with or without stem cell transplantation.

A therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy for preventing bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To determine whether a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given when patient bleeds) is as effective and safe as a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding usually when the platelet count falls below a given trigger level) in patients with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

Comparison of different platelet count thresholds to guide administration of prophylactic platelet transfusion for preventing bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To determine whether different platelet transfusion thresholds for administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding) affect the efficacy and safety of prophylactic platelet transfusions in preventing bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after chemotherapy with or without stem cell transplantation.

Inverse probability weighted estimating equations for randomized trials in transfusion medicine

Thrombocytopenia is a condition characterized by extremely low platelet counts, which puts patients at elevated risk of morbidity and mortality because of bleeding. Trials in transfusion medicine are routinely designed to assess the effect of experimental platelet products on patients' platelet counts. In such trials, patients may receive multiple platelet transfusions over a predefined period of treatment, and a response is available from each such administration. The resulting data comprised multiple responses per patient, and although it is natural to want to use this data in testing for treatment effects, naive analyses of the multiple responses can yield biased estimates of the probability of response and associated treatment effects. These biases arise because only subsets of the patients randomized contribute response data on the second and subsequent administrations of therapy and the balance between treatment groups with respect to potential confounding factors is lost. We discuss the design and analysis issues involved in this setting and make recommendations for the design of future platelet transfusion trials.

Thrombocytopenia, bleeding, and use of platelet transfusions in sick neonates

Survival rates for infants born prematurely have improved significantly, in part due to better supportive care such as RBC transfusion. The role of platelet transfusions in neonates is more controversial. Neonatal thrombocytopenia is common in premature infants. The primary causal factors are intrauterine growth restriction/maternal hypertension, in which the infant presents with thrombocytopenia soon after birth, and sepsis/necrotizing enterocolitis, which are the common morbidities associated with thrombocytopenia in neonates > 72 hours of age. There is no evidence of a relationship between platelet count and occurrence of major hemorrhage, and cardiorespiratory problems are considered the main etiological factors in the development of intraventricular and periventricular hemorrhage in the neonatal period. Platelet transfusions are used commonly as prophylaxis in premature neonates with thrombocytopenia. However, there is widespread variation in the pretransfusion thresholds for platelet count and evidence of marked disparities in platelet transfusion practice between hospitals and countries. Platelet transfusions are biological agents and as such are associated with risks. Unlike other patient groups, specifically patients with hematological malignancies, there have been no recent clinical trials undertaken comparing different thresholds for platelet transfusion in premature neonates. Therefore, there is no evidence base with which to inform safe and effective practice for prophylactic platelet transfusions. There is a need for randomized controlled trials to define the optimal use of platelet transfusions in premature neonates, who at present are transfused heavily with platelets.

The observation of bleeding complications in haemato-oncological patients: stringent watching, relevant reporting

BACKGROUND

The reported percentage of haemato-oncological patients experiencing bleeding complications is highly variable, ranging from 5 to 70%, posing a major problem for comparison of clinical platelet transfusion trials using bleeding complications as a primary endpoint. In a pilot study we assessed the impact of the design of scoring of bleeding on the percentage of patients with WHO grade 2 or higher bleeding grades.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a prospective, observational study using a rigorous bleeding observation system in thrombocytopenic patients with haemato-oncological disorders. Endpoints of the study were the percentage of patients and days with bleeding WHO grade ≥ 2 comparing designs in which skin bleeding represent a continuation of a previous bleed or a new bleed.

RESULTS

In four participating hospitals 64 patients suffering 870 evaluable thrombocytopenic days (platelet count < 80 × 10(9) L(-1)) were included. At least one episode of bleeding grade ≥ 2 occurred in 36 patients (56%). Most grade 2 bleeding complications occurred mucocutaneously. The percentage of days with bleeding of grade ≥ 2 was 16% but decreases to 8% when only newly developed skin bleeding was included.

CONCLUSION

Rigorous daily observation results in a bleeding incidence that is comparable to recent reportings applying the same method. The results of this study show that censoring for stable skin bleeding has a profound effect on bleeding incidence per day. The clinical relevance of rigorous or clinically judged bleeding scores as an endpoint remains to be defined.

Eltrombopag before procedures in patients with cirrhosis and thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

Eltrombopag is an oral thrombopoietin-receptor agonist. This study evaluated the efficacy of eltrombopag for increasing platelet counts and reducing the need for platelet transfusions in patients with thrombocytopenia and chronic liver disease who are undergoing an elective invasive procedure.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 292 patients with chronic liver disease of diverse causes and platelet counts of less than 50,000 per cubic millimeter to receive eltrombopag, at a dose of 75 mg daily, or placebo for 14 days before a planned elective invasive procedure that was performed within 5 days after the last dose. The primary end point was the avoidance of a platelet transfusion before, during, and up to 7 days after the procedure. A key secondary end point was the occurrence of bleeding (World Health Organization [WHO] grade 2 or higher) during this period.

RESULTS

A platelet transfusion was avoided in 104 of 145 patients who received eltrombopag (72%) and in 28 of 147 who received placebo (19%) (P<0.001). No significant difference between the eltrombopag and placebo groups was observed in bleeding episodes of WHO grade 2 or higher, which were reported in 17% and 23% of patients, respectively. Thrombotic events of the portal venous system were observed in 6 patients who received eltrombopag, as compared with 1 who received placebo, resulting in the early termination of the study. The incidence and severity of other adverse events were similar in the eltrombopag and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Eltrombopag reduced the need for platelet transfusions in patients with chronic liver disease who were undergoing elective invasive procedures, but it was associated with an increased incidence of portal-vein thrombosis, as compared with placebo. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ELEVATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00678587.).

Platelet transfusion threshold in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There exists uncertainty as to the optimal platelet values when managing patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. GOALS AND STUDY: A systematic review was carried out to determine the optimal approach when managing patients with thrombocytopenia in the setting of nonvariceal upper GI bleeding.

RESULTS

Eighteen of 803 potential articles were selected and reviewed, including 4 randomized controlled trials and 6 cohort studies. The only empirical clinical data available pertained to the management of hematology or oncology patients. There was no high-level evidence that determined the proper threshold of platelet transfusion specifically in GI bleeding. We were, therefore, limited to include principally consensus opinions, recommendations, and guidelines for platelet transfusion trigger as they apply to the treatment (including prophylaxis) of bleeding in general, with a paucity of data addressing major bleeding, let alone bleeding from a gastroenterologic origin. Randomized clinical trials were individually underpowered in allowing definitive conclusions, even though resulting recommendations were supported by similarly underpowered retrospective and prospective observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There exist a paucity of data to recommend optimal therapeutic platelet count targets in patients with active GI bleeding. Based principally on expert opinion recommendations, we propose a count of 50×10/L. Some professional associations have suggested in very specific clinical settings (postcardiopulmonary bypass surgery or central nervous system trauma) a higher value of up to 100×10/L. Properly designed randomized trials are required to more precisely address this important clinical question.

The influence of bleeding on trigger changes for platelet transfusion in patients with chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

For patients with thrombocytopenia without bleeding risk factors, a platelet transfusion trigger of 10 × 10(9) /L is recommended. No studies have evaluated the clinicians' decision-making process leading to trigger changes.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We report on the evaluation of trigger changes and the relation with bleeding. Eighty patients previously enrolled in the SPRINT trial represent the patient population for the current analysis.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients had a starting trigger of 10 × 10(9) /L. Only a minority of patients treated with chemotherapy alone (3/12, 25%) and autologous transplant (6/15, 40%) had a change in their trigger in contrast to the majority of allogeneic transplant (37/47, 79%; p = 0.001 and p = 0.009, respectively, when compared to allogeneic transplant group). Bleeding was the main reason reported by clinicians for a trigger change, but the occurrence of significant bleeding (Grade 2-4) was similar in patients with or without a trigger change (51 and 54%, p = 1.00). Clinicians were influenced by the bleeding system: grade 1 mucocutaneous bleeding leading to a trigger change was overrepresented (71% of cases), as was grade 2 genitourinary bleeding not leading to a trigger change (57% of cases).

CONCLUSION

A universal trigger of 10 × 10(9) /L may not be maintained in a diverse population of patients with their respective bleeding risk factors. Because the trigger is changed often, it may not be as effective as previously believed.

Prophylactic platelet transfusion for prevention of bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients with bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the most effective use of platelet transfusion for the prevention of bleeding in patients with haematological disorders undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 4, 2011), MEDLINE (1950 to Nov 2011), EMBASE (1980 to Nov 2011) and CINAHL (1982 to Nov 2011), using adaptations of the Cochrane RCT search filter, the UKBTS/SRI Transfusion Evidence Library, and ongoing trial databases to 10 November 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in patients with haematological disorders. Four different types of prophylactic platelet transfusion trial were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In the original review one author initially screened all electronically derived citations and abstracts of papers, identified by the review search strategy, for relevancy. Two authors performed this task in the updated review. Two authors independently assessed the full text of all potentially relevant trials for eligibility. Two authors completed data extraction independently. We requested missing data from the original investigators as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 18 trials that were eligible for inclusion, five of these were still ongoing.Thirteen completed published trials (2331 participants) were included for analysis in the review. The original review contained nine trials (718 participants). This updated review includes six new trials (1818 participants).Two trials (205 participants) in the original review are now excluded because fewer than 80% of participants had a haematological disorder.The four different types of prophylactic platelet transfusion trial, that were the focus of this review, were included within these thirteen trials.Three trials compared prophylactic platelet transfusions versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusions. There was no statistical difference between the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding in the therapeutic and prophylactic arms but the confidence interval was wide (RR 1.66; 95% CI 0.9 to 3.04).The time taken for a clinically significant bleed to occur was longer in the prophylactic platelet transfusion arm. There was a clear reduction in platelet transfusion usage in the therapeutic arm. There was no statistical difference between the number of participants in the therapeutic and prophylactic arms with platelet refractoriness, the only adverse event reported.Three trials compared different platelet count thresholds to trigger administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions. No statistical difference was seen in the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding (RR 1.35; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.9), however, this type of bleeding occurred on fewer days in the group of patients transfused at a higher platelet count threshold (RR 1.72; 95% CI 1.33 to 2.22).The lack of a difference seen for the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding may be due to the studies, in combination, having insufficient power to demonstrate a difference, or due to masking of the effect by a higher number of protocol violations in the groups of patients with a lower platelet count threshold. Using a lower platelet count threshold led to a significant reduction in the number of platelet transfusions used. There were no statistical differences in the number of adverse events reported between the two groups.Six trials compared different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusions. There was no evidence to suggest that using a lower platelet transfusion dose increased: the number of participants with clinically significant (WHO grade 2 or above) (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11), or life-threatening (WHO grade 4) bleeding (RR 1.87; 95% CI 0.86 to 4.08). A higher platelet transfusion dose led to a reduction in the number of platelet transfusion episodes, but an increase in total platelet utilisation. Only one adverse event, wheezing after transfusion, had a significantly higher incidence when standard and high dose transfusions were compared but this difference was not seen when low dose and high dose transfusions were compared. It is therefore likely to be a type I error (false positive).One small trial compared prophylactic platelet transfusions versus platelet-poor plasma. The risk of a significant bleed was decreased in the prophylactic platelet transfusion arm (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95) and this was statistically significant.All studies had threats to validity; the majority of these were due to methodology of the studies not being described in adequate detail.Although it was not the main focus of the review, it was interesting to note that in one of the pre-specified sub-group analyses (treatment type) two studies showed that patients receiving an autologous transplant have a lower risk of bleeding than patients receiving intensive chemotherapy or an allogeneic transplant (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.82).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These conclusions refer to the four different types of platelet transfusion trial separately. Firstly, there is no evidence that a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy prevents bleeding. Two large trials comparing a therapeutic versus prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy, that have not yet been published, should provide important new data on this comparison. Secondly, there is no evidence, at the moment, to suggest a change from the current practice of using a platelet count of 10 x 10(9)/L. However, the evidence for a platelet count threshold of 10 x 10(9)/L being equivalent to 20 x 10(9)/L is not as definitive as it would first appear and further research is required. Thirdly, platelet dose does not affect the number of patients with significant bleeding, but whether it affects number of days each patient bleeds for is as yet undetermined. There is no evidence that platelet dose affects the incidence of WHO grade 4 bleeding.Prophylactic platelet transfusions were more effective than platelet-poor plasma at preventing bleeding.

Therapeutic efficacy of platelet components treated with amotosalen and ultraviolet A pathogen inactivation method: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There are conflicting data regarding the therapeutic efficacy of platelets inactivated using amotosalen and ultraviolet A light. We have performed a meta-analysis to summarize the results of different randomized controlled trials (RCT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five RCTs reported through March 2011 met the criteria for meta-analysis. Weighted mean difference (WMD) in corrected count increment (CCI) at 1 h, CCI-24 h, and transfusion interval (days) and summary odds ratio (OR) of bleeding in inactivated platelet (I-P) group vs. noninactivated platelet (C-P) group were calculated across studies.

RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials were statistically homogeneous when we analysed CCI-24 h, and the transfusion of C-P was associated with a higher CCI-24 h when compared with the transfusion of I-P (WMD, 3×10(3); 95% CI, 2·32×10(3)-3·69×10(3); P<0·00001). RCTs were statistically heterogeneous when we analysed CCI-1 h, transfusion interval and OR of bleeding. Regarding the OR of bleeding in the I-P and C-P groups, it varied by as much as a multiple of four among the trials, from 0·66 to 2·66. When we combined double-blinded and high methodologic quality score RCTs, the use of I-P was not statistically associated with an increase in the OR of bleeding when compared with the use of C-P (OR, 0·97; 95% CI, 0·75-1·27; P=0·84).

CONCLUSION

Although the transfusion of I-P was associated with lower CCI-24 h when compared with the transfusion of C-P, this was not associated with differences in the OR of bleeding between I-P and C-P.

A new tool to assess bleeding severity in patients with chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

Current scales to measure bleeding in clinical trials are inadequate. The aim of this study was to develop a simple, valid, and reliable measurement tool to categorize the severity of bleeding in patients with chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT).

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Measurement theory was used to develop the Bleeding Severity Measurement Scale (BSMS) in four steps: 1) identification of the patient population, 2) item generation and reduction, 3) reviewing the items and formatting the scale, and 4) evaluation of psychometric properties. Feasibility was tested in a pilot study. Content and face validity were assessed by expert review. Psychometric evaluation included determination of intra- and interrater reliability and construct and criterion validity.

RESULTS

The final BSMS defined two grades of bleeding: not clinically significant (Grade 1) and clinically significant (Grade 2). Grade 2 bleeds were defined as bleeds resulting in morbidity, requiring interventions, or directly causing death. The BSMS had excellent interrater (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.80) and intrarater (ICC, 1.0) reliability and good construct and criterion validity. The BSMS distinguished between patients with different bleeding severities.

CONCLUSION

Using rigorous methods, we designed a simple bleeding assessment tool with excellent psychometric properties for patients with CIT. Use of this scale in clinical trials should provide valid and reliable assessments of bleeding.

Selective validation of the WHO Bleeding Scale in patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenia

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the World Health Organization's (WHO) Bleeding Scale in two studies of eltrombopag in adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Validated scales assessing bleeding in adults with ITP are lacking. Data from two long-term, phase 3 clinical trials (RAISE: NCT00370331; EXTEND: NCT00351468) that assessed eltrombopag in adults with chronic ITP were analyzed to evaluate the performance of the WHO Bleeding Scale.

RESULTS

In RAISE, effect size (0.71), standardized response (0.75), and responsiveness statistics (0.57) were moderate for bleeding and bruising assessments. In EXTEND, effect size (0.62) and responsiveness statistics (0.59) were moderate; the standardized response statistic was 0.487. Intraclass correlation for test-retest reliability was 0.75 in RAISE and 0.71 in EXTEND. A positive correlation was observed between the WHO Bleeding Scale and the ITP Bleeding Scale. Bleeding scores and quality-of-life measures were inversely correlated (p < 0.05 for all). Minimal important differences for the WHO Bleeding Scale were 0.33-0.40 at baseline and last on-treatment assessment in both studies.

LIMITATIONS

The majority of bleeding in these studies was mild to moderate, so this analysis cannot provide strong evidence of the validity of the WHO Bleeding Scale in patients with more severe bleeding. Potential limitations to the WHO Bleeding Scale itself include dependence on clinician interpretation of patient recall, inability to distinguish among bleeding events occurring at different anatomical sites, and an inherent assumption of linear increases in severity of bleeding across the response categories.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest potential usefulness of the WHO Bleeding Scale in adult patients with chronic ITP for standardizing grading of bleeding across research studies and in clinical practice.

Meta-analysis of the studies of bleeding complications of platelets pathogen-reduced with the Intercept system

BACKGROUND

The eligibility criteria of a previously reported meta-analysis (Transfusion 2011;51:1058-1071) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pathogen reduction of platelets in patients with hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia were modified to examine the impact on the findings of: (1) inclusion of a (previously excluded) RCT; (2) restriction of eligibility to RCTs of the Intercept (amotosalen-HCl/ultraviolet-A-light) system; and (3) differences in the methods used to assess bleeding complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five RCTs comparing the risk of all, clinically significant (grades 2 through 4) and/or severe (grades 3 and 4) bleeding complications between recipients of platelets treated with Intercept vs. standard unmanipulated platelets were included. Odds ratios (ORs) of bleeding complications of similar severity recorded during similar periods of observation were calculated across all studies and across homogeneous subsets of studies by random-effects methods.

RESULTS

Treatment with Intercept increased all bleeding complications when four RCTs meeting the eligibility criteria of the previous meta-analysis were integrated, but not across all the five currently available studies [summary OR=1·24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0·79-1·93]. Clinically significant bleeding complications increased when the results of the SPRINT RCT were based on the expanded safety analysis (summary OR=1·52; 95% CI, 1·09-2·12)--but not the initial report (summary OR=1·30; 95% CI, 0·54-3·14)--of that study.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with Intercept may increase the risk of all and clinically significant (albeit not severe) bleeding complications in RCTs maintaining a platelet count of ≥10×10(9) or ≥20×10(9)/l through increased platelet transfusions.

Adjudicating bleeding events in a platelet dose study: impact on outcome results and challenges

BACKGROUND

In the SToP platelet dose study, the World Health Organization (WHO) bleeding grade was assigned using adjudication. This study describes the challenges associated with adjudicating bleeding events and compares the adjudicated and bedside results for bleeding grade.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

To categorize bleeding, the following information was provided to adjudicators: daily bleeding assessments, interventions to stop or control bleeding, daily blood counts, and transfused blood components. Each daily assessment was sent to two adjudicators who independently assigned a grade and anatomic site of bleeding. Discordant cases where disagreement occurred were sent to a third adjudicator and subsequently to a fourth or fifth adjudicator in an attempt to reach agreement. Disagreement after five adjudicators was resolved by consensus. The final adjudicated grade was compared with the grade of bleeding assigned at the bedside by study personnel.

RESULTS

A total of 1150 case report forms were adjudicated. Disagreement on grade of bleeding was common: 31.2% after the first two adjudicators, 4.0% after the third adjudicator, 0.7% after four, and 0.05% after five. Disagreement on anatomic site was less but still occurred in 17% of cases after two adjudicators. The frequency of bleeding (≥ Grade 2) based on adjudication was higher than bedside grading (standard-dose arm, 47.5% vs. 34.4%; low-dose arm, 50.0% vs. 43.1%).

CONCLUSION

The frequency of WHO bleeding varies depending on the method used to assign grade. Adjudication to assign bleeding grade resulted in significant disagreement when two adjudicators were used.

Platelet dose for prophylactic platelet transfusions

Although guidelines exist to deal with some aspects of platelet transfusion practice, many important clinical issues have not been addressed in large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Slichter et al. conducted a RCT of prophylactic platelet transfusions to determine the effects of the dose of platelets on clinical signs of bleeding, the use of platelet and red cell transfusions, changes in the recipient's post-transfusion platelet count, days to next transfusion and adverse events (Effects of Prophylactic Platelet Dose on Transfusion Outcomes [PLADO] trial). The primary end point of the study (i.e., the percentage of patients in each group with at least one episode of bleeding of grade 2 or higher according to the WHO criteria) was not significantly different (71, 69 and 70% of patients in the low-, medium- and high-dose group, respectively). According to these data, one can conclude that the dose of platelets transfused has no significant effect on the incidence of bleeding in patients with hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia and platelet counts no greater than 10 × 10⁹/l.

Optimal preprocedural platelet transfusion threshold for central venous catheter insertions in patients with thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe thrombocytopenia are at risk for bleeding during insertion of central venous catheters (CVCs). Although most guidelines recommend preprocedural platelet (PLT) transfusions at a threshold of less than 50 × 10(9) /L, there is only weak evidence supporting such recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The current study aimed to establish a safe PLT transfusion trigger in patients with CVC placements. We performed a retrospective single-center analysis of 604 CVC insertions in 193 patients with acute leukemia receiving intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

RESULTS

A total of 48% of the patients had a bleeding risk during CVC insertions, mostly due to thrombocytopenia. The bleeding incidence was 32% with 96% Grade 1 and 4% Grade 2 bleedings requiring prolonged local compression. There were no Grade 3 to 4 bleedings. Hemoglobin levels were similar before and 24 and 48 hours after the CVC insertion in the bleeding and nonbleeding group and there was no difference in the red blood cell (p = 0.72) and PLT transfusion requirements (p = 0.057) after CVC insertion. In multivariate analysis, only patients with PLT counts of less than 20 × 10(9) /L were at higher risk for bleeding before (p = 0.015) and after preprocedural PLT transfusions (p =0.006) compared to patients with PLT counts of 100 × 10(9) /L or more.

CONCLUSION

CVC placements can safely be performed in patients with PLT counts of 20 × 10(9) /L or more without preprocedural PLT transfusions.

Pathophysiology and management of chronic immune thrombocytopenia: focusing on what matters

Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is a common autoimmune disease characterized by low platelet counts and an increased risk of bleeding. Antibody-mediated platelet destruction has been the prevailing hypothesis to explain ITP pathogenesis, supported by the efficacy of B-cell depletion therapy; however, the recent success of thrombopoietin receptor agonists lends support to the notion that platelet production is also insufficient. Best practice for the management of chronic ITP has not yet been established because data from comparative trials are lacking. Despite renewed interest in novel drugs capable of increasing platelet counts, ultimate treatment goals for ITP patients must be kept in mind: to improve patients' health and well-being. In this article, the pathophysiology of ITP is reviewed and key remaining questions about mechanism are explored. A rational approach to the management of ITP in adults is outlined, acknowledging evidence and evidence gaps, and highlighting the need for clinically important endpoints in future clinical trials.

Do all patients with hematologic malignancies and severe thrombocytopenia need prophylactic platelet transfusions? Background, rationale, and design of a clinical trial (trial of platelet prophylaxis) to assess the effectiveness of prophylactic platelet transfusions

Although considerable advances have been made in many aspects of platelet transfusion therapy in the last 30 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, including the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding in patients with bone marrow failure. We have designed a randomized controlled trial to compare prophylactic platelet use with a threshold of a platelet count of 10 x 10(9)/L with no prophylaxis in adult thrombocytopenic patients with hematologic malignancies. The trial question is whether a no-prophylactic policy for the use of platelet transfusions in patients with hematologic malignancies is not inferior to a threshold prophylactic policy at 10 x 10(9)/L, for bleeding at World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2, 3, or 4, up to 30 days from randomization. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients who have a significant clinical bleed, defined as WHO grade 2 or higher up to 30 days from randomization. Subsidiary clinical outcome measures include time to first bleed and a descriptive analysis of all severe bleeds. A bleeding assessment form is completed daily for all study subjects until day 30 from randomization. Minor modifications were made to the definitions at WHO grades 1 and 2 for petechiae and duration of nose bleeds, after piloting of the bleeding assessment forms. This study has been designed as a 2-stage randomized trial with an interim analysis planned after a minimum of 100 patients had been randomized and had completed their period of observation. Patients have initially been enrolled through 3 United Kingdom hematology centers. The interim analysis has been completed, and the results have confirmed a final sample size of 600 patients. Recruitment is now being extended to other centers in United Kingdom and Australia. Local research nurses are not blinded to treatment allocation, but a number of measures to reduce risk of assessment bias include repeated education around standard operating procedures, common definitions, and duplication of assessments. The expected completion date for the 5-year study is December 2011.