Platelet dose consistency and its effect on the number of platelet transfusions for support of thrombocytopenia: an analysis of the SPRINT trial of platelets photochemically treated with amotosalen HCl and ultraviolet A light

Platelet Pathogen Reduction Technology-Should We Stay or Should We Go…?

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has significantly challenged blood transfusion services (BTS) for providing blood products and for keeping blood supplies available. The possibility that a similar pandemic event may occur again has induced researchers and transfusionists to investigate the adoption of new tools to prevent and reduce these risks. Similarly, increased donor travelling and globalization, with consequent donor deferral and donor pool reduction, have contributed to raising awareness on this topic. Although recent studies have validated the use of pathogen reduction technology (PRT) for the control of transfusion-transmitted infections (TTI) this method is not a standard of care despite increasing adoption. We present a critical commentary on the role of PRT for platelets and on associated problems for blood transfusion services (BTS). The balance of the cost effectiveness of adopting PRT is also discussed.

The Year in Coagulation and Transfusion: Selected Highlights from 2022

This is an annual review to cover highlights in transfusion and coagulation in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery. The goal of this article is to provide readers with a focused summary of the most important transfusion and coagulation topics published in 2022. This includes a discussion covering the management of anemia and red blood cell transfusion, the management of factor Xa inhibitors, updates in coagulation testing, updates in the use of factor concentrates, advances in platelet therapy, advances in anticoagulation management of patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and other forms of mechanical circulatory support, and advances in the diagnosis and management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

Longitudinal analysis of annual national hemovigilance data to assess pathogen reduced platelet transfusion trends during conversion to routine universal clinical use and 7-day storage

BACKGROUND

France converted to universal pathogen reduced (PR; amotosalen/UVA) platelets in 2017 and extended platelet component (PC) shelf-life from 5- to 7-days in 2018 and 2019. Annual national hemovigilance (HV) reports characterized longitudinal PC utilization and safety over 11 years, including several years prior to PR adoption as the national standard of care.

METHODS

Data were extracted from published annual HV reports. Apheresis and pooled buffy coat [BC] PC use was compared. Transfusion reactions (TRs) were stratified by type, severity, and causality. Trends were assessed for three periods: Baseline (2010-14; ~7% PR), Period 1 ([P1] 2015-17; 8%-21% PR), and Period 2 ([P2] 2018-20; 100% PR).

RESULTS

PC use increased by 19.1% between 2010 and 2020. Pooled BC PC production increased from 38.8% to 68.2% of total PCs. Annual changes in PCs issued averaged 2.4% per year at baseline, -0.02% (P1) and 2.8% (P2). The increase in P2 coincided with a reduction in the target platelet dose and extension to 7-day storage. Allergic reactions, alloimmunization, febrile non-hemolytic TRs, immunologic incompatibility, and ineffective transfusions accounted for >90% of TRs. Overall, TR incidence per 100,000 PCs issued declined from 527.9 (2010) to 345.7 (2020). Severe TR rates declined 34.8% between P1-P2. Forty-six transfusion-transmitted bacterial infections (TTBI) were associated with conventional PCs during baseline and P1. No TTBI were associated with amotosalen/UVA PCs. Infections with Hepatitis E (HEV) a non-enveloped virus resistant to PR, were reported in all periods.

DISCUSSION

Longitudinal HV analysis demonstrated stable PC utilization trends with reduced patient risk during conversion to universal 7-day amotosalen/UVA PCs.

What Laboratory Tests and Physiologic Triggers Should Guide the Decision to Administer a Platelet or Plasma Transfusion in Critically Ill Children and What Product Attributes Are Optimal to Guide Specific Product Selection? From the Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative-Control/Avoidance of Bleeding

OBJECTIVES

To present consensus statements and supporting literature for plasma and platelet product variables and related laboratory testing for transfusions in general critically ill children from the Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative-Control/Avoidance of Bleeding.

DESIGN

Systematic review and consensus conference of international, multidisciplinary experts in platelet and plasma transfusion management of critically ill children.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENTS

Critically ill pediatric patients at risk of bleeding and receiving plasma and/or platelet transfusions.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A panel of 10 experts developed evidence-based and, when evidence was insufficient, expert-based statements for laboratory testing and blood product attributes for platelet and plasma transfusions. These statements were reviewed and ratified by the 29 Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative - Control/Avoidance of Bleeding experts. A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, from inception to December 2020. Consensus was obtained using the Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. Results were summarized using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. We developed five expert consensus statements and two recommendations in answer to two questions: what laboratory tests and physiologic triggers should guide the decision to administer a platelet or plasma transfusion in critically ill children; and what product attributes are optimal to guide specific product selection?

CONCLUSIONS

The Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative-Control/Avoidance of Bleeding program provides some guidance and expert consensus for the laboratory and blood product attributes used for decision-making for plasma and platelet transfusions in critically ill pediatric patients.

Haemostatic function measured by thromboelastography and metabolic activity of platelets treated with riboflavin and UV light

BACKGROUND

Pathogen reduction technology (PRT) may damage platelet (PLT) components. To study this, metabolic activity and haemostatic function of buffy coat (BC) PLT concentrates, with or without riboflavin and UV light PRT treatment, were compared.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-four BC PLT concentrates, leukoreduced and diluted in additive solution, were grouped into 12 type-matched pairs, which were pooled and divided into 12 non-PRT-treated BC PLT concentrates (control units) and 12 riboflavin and UV PRT-treated BC PLT concentrates (test units). Haemostatic function and metabolic parameters were monitored by thrombelastography at days 1, 3, 7 and 14 post collection in both PLT groups.

RESULTS

Loss of PLT discoid shape, glucose consumption, lactate production, and decrease in pH were greater in the PRT-treated PLTs than in control PLTs over time (p<0.001). PLT haemostatic function evaluated by clot strength was also significantly weaker in PRT-treated PLTs compared with the excellent clot quality of control PLTs at day 7 (maximum amplitude: 41.27 vs 64.27; p<0.001), and even at day 14 (21.16 vs 60.39; p<0.001) of storage.

DISCUSSION

Pathogen reduction technology treatment accelerates and increases platelet storage lesion, resulting in glucose depletion, lactate accumulation, PLT acidification, and discoid shape loss. The clots produced by control PLTs at day 14 were still remarkably strong, whereas at day 7 PRT-treated PLTs produced weaker clots compared to the control group. Clinical trials investigating the efficacy of PRT-treated PLTs transfused at the end of the storage period (day 7), when the in vitro clot strength is weaker, are needed.

Contemporary resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock: What will the future hold?

Resuscitation of the critically ill patient with fluid and blood products is one of the most widespread interventions in medicine. This is especially relevant for trauma patients, as hemorrhagic shock remains the most common cause of preventable death after injury. Consequently, the study of the ideal resuscitative product for patients in shock has become an area of great scientific interest and investigation. Recently, the pendulum has swung towards increased utilization of blood products for resuscitation. However, pathogens, immune reactions and the limited availability of this resource remain a challenge for clinicians. Technologic advances in pathogen reduction and innovations in blood product processing will allow us to increase the safety profile and efficacy of blood products, ultimately to the benefit of patients. The purpose of this article is to review the current state of blood product based resuscitative strategies as well as technologic advancements that may lead to safer resuscitation.

A systematic literature review on the use of platelet transfusions in patients with thrombocytopenia

Objective: Investigate globally, current treatment patterns, benefit-risk assessments, humanistic, societal and economic burden of platelet transfusion (PT). Methods: Publications from 1998 to June 27, 2018 were identified, based on databases searches including MEDLINE®; Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Data from studies meeting pre-specified criteria were extracted and validated by independent reviewers. Data were obtained for efficacy and safety from randomized controlled trials (RCTs); data for epidemiology, treatment patterns, effectiveness, safety, humanistic and societal burden from real-world evidence (RWE) studies; and economic data from both. Results: A total of 3425 abstracts, 194 publications (190 studies) were included. PT use varied widely, from 0%-100% of TCP patients; 1.7%-24.5% in large studies (>1000 patients). Most were used prophylactically rather than therapeutically. 5 of 43 RCTs compared prophylactic PT with no intervention, with mixed results. In RWE studies PT generally increased platelet count (PC). This increase varied by patient characteristics and hence did not always translate into a clinically significant reduction in bleeding risk. Safety concerns included infection risk, alloimmunization and refractoriness with associated cost burden. Discussion: In RCTs and RWE studies there was significant heterogeneity in study design and outcome measures. In RWE studies, patients receiving PT may have been at higher risk than those not receiving PT creating potential bias. There were limited data on humanistic and societal burden. Conclusion: Although PTs are used widely for increasing PC in TCP, it is important to understand the limitations of PTs, and to explore the use of alternative treatment options where available.

Metabolomics study of platelet concentrates photochemically treated with amotosalen and UVA light for pathogen inactivation

BACKGROUND

The risk of bacterial contamination and the deterioration of platelet (PLT) quality limit the shelf-life of platelet concentrates (PCs). The INTERCEPT pathogen inactivation system reduces the risk of pathogen transmission by inhibiting nucleic acid replication using a combination of a photo-reactive compound and UVA illumination. The goal of this study was to investigate the effects the INTERCEPT system has on the PLT metabolome and metabolic activity.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Paired units of buffy coat-derived PCs were generated using a pool and split strategy (n = 8). The paired PCs were either treated with the INTERCEPT system or left untreated. Samples were collected on Days 1, 2, 4, and 7 of storage. Ultra-performance chromatography coupled with time-of-flight mass spectrometry was used to analyze the extra- and intracellular metabolomes. Constraint-based metabolic modeling was then used to predict the metabolic activity of the stored PLTs.

RESULTS

A relatively large number of metabolites in the extracellular environment were depleted during the processing steps of the INTERCEPT system, in particular, metabolites with hydrophobic functional groups, including acylcarnitines and lysophosphatidylcholines. In the intracellular environment, alterations in glucose and glycerophospholipid metabolism and decreased levels of 2-hydroxyglutarate were observed following the INTERCEPT treatment. Untargeted metabolomics analysis revealed residual amotosalen dimers present in the treated PCs. Systems-level analysis of PLT metabolism indicated that the INTERCEPT system does not have a significant impact on the PLT energy metabolism and nutrient utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

The INTERCEPT system significantly alters the metabolome of the stored PCs without significantly influencing PLT energy metabolism.

Phased implementation of pathogen-reduced platelets in a health system facilitates increased manufacturing at the blood center

BACKGROUND

Pathogen reduction treatment (PRT) reduces the risk of transfusion‐transmitted infections from established and emerging organisms. Manufacturing, however, is complex. In our university health system, we phased in pathogen‐reduced platelets (PR PLTs) by patient population. We then assessed the implementation strategy and investigated factors in the supply chain that prevented us from meeting the goal of providing greater than 90% PR PLTs within 6 months.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In Phase 1, PR PLTs were provided in the outpatient cancer center. Phase 2 added inpatients undergoing bone marrow transplantation, and Phase 3 included all patients. In Phase 4, the blood center implemented manufacturing optimization strategies. Product supply and usage during the first 23 months after implementation were evaluated. Investigation of the supply chain included analysis of (1) the number of in‐state hospitals receiving PR PLTs; (2) the fraction of products eligible for PRT before and after manufacturing improvements.

RESULTS

During Phases 1 and 2, PR products comprised 44% and 53% of PLTs transfused in the phased‐in areas. At 6 months, 41% of PLTs were PR, and at 23 months, 92%. The fraction of PR PLTs transfused in our system correlated logarithmically with the number of in‐state hospitals receiving them (R² = 0.71) and the number of PR PLTs sold to those hospitals (R² = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

Phased implementation is a practical and ethical way to introduce PR PLTs in a health system and facilitates scalability at the blood center. Widespread availability of PR products may require collective action and can be increased by optimization strategies during manufacturing.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/trf.15500/full

Pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic. Despite improvements in donor screening and laboratory testing, a small risk of viral, bacterial, or protozoal contamination of platelets remains. There is also an ongoing risk from newly emerging blood transfusion-transmitted infections for which laboratory tests may not be available at the time of initial outbreak.One solution to reduce the risk of blood transfusion-transmitted infections from platelet transfusion is photochemical pathogen reduction, in which pathogens are either inactivated or significantly depleted in number, thereby reducing the chance of transmission. This process might offer additional benefits, including platelet shelf-life extension, and negate the requirement for gamma-irradiation of platelets. Although current pathogen-reduction technologies have been proven to reduce pathogen load in platelet concentrates, a number of published clinical studies have raised concerns about the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for post-transfusion platelet count recovery and the prevention of bleeding when compared with standard platelets.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding in people of any age requiring platelet transfusions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 24 October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing the transfusion of pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets, or comparing different types of pathogen-reduced platelets.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five new trials in this update of the review. A total of 15 trials were eligible for inclusion in this review, 12 completed trials (2075 participants) and three ongoing trials. Ten of the 12 completed trials were included in the original review. We did not identify any RCTs comparing the transfusion of one type of pathogen-reduced platelets with another.Nine trials compared Intercept® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets, two trials compared Mirasol® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets; and one trial compared both pathogen-reduced platelets types to standard platelets. Three RCTs were randomised cross-over trials, and nine were parallel-group trials. Of the 2075 participants enrolled in the trials, 1981 participants received at least one platelet transfusion (1662 participants in Intercept® platelet trials and 319 in Mirasol® platelet trials).One trial included children requiring cardiac surgery (16 participants) or adults requiring a liver transplant (28 participants). All of the other participants were thrombocytopenic individuals who had a haematological or oncological diagnosis. Eight trials included only adults.Four of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, while the remaining eight included studies had some threats to validity.Overall, the quality of the evidence was low to high across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology.We are very uncertain as to whether pathogen-reduced platelets increase the risk of any bleeding (World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 1 to 4) (5 trials, 1085 participants; fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.15; I2 = 59%, random-effect RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; I2 = 59%; low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of clinically significant bleeding complications (WHO Grade 2 or higher) (5 trials, 1392 participants; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.25; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and there is probably no difference in the risk of developing severe bleeding (WHO Grade 3 or higher) (6 trials, 1495 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.02; I2 = 32%; moderate-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of all-cause mortality at 4 to 12 weeks (6 trials, 1509 participants; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.29; I2 = 26%; moderate-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of serious adverse events (7 trials, 1340 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). However, no bacterial transfusion-transmitted infections occurred in the six trials that reported this outcome.Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had an increased risk of developing platelet refractoriness (7 trials, 1525 participants; RR 2.94, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.16; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence), though the definition of platelet refractoriness differed between trials.Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions required more platelet transfusions (6 trials, 1509 participants; mean difference (MD) 1.23, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; I2 = 27%; high-quality evidence), and there was probably a shorter time interval between transfusions (6 trials, 1489 participants; MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.32; I2 = 29%; moderate-quality evidence). Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had a lower 24-hour corrected-count increment (7 trials, 1681 participants; MD -3.02, 95% CI -3.57 to -2.48; I2 = 15%; high-quality evidence).None of the studies reported quality of life.We did not evaluate any economic outcomes.There was evidence of subgroup differences in multiple transfusion trials between the two pathogen-reduced platelet technologies assessed in this review (Intercept® and Mirasol®) for all-cause mortality and the interval between platelet transfusions (favouring Intercept®).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this review were based on 12 trials, and of the 1981 participants who received a platelet transfusion only 44 did not have a haematological or oncological diagnosis.In people with haematological or oncological disorders who are thrombocytopenic due to their disease or its treatment, we found high-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions increase the risk of platelet refractoriness and the platelet transfusion requirement. We found moderate-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions do not affect all-cause mortality, the risk of clinically significant or severe bleeding, or the risk of a serious adverse event. There was insufficient evidence for people with other diagnoses.All three ongoing trials are in adults (planned recruitment 1375 participants) with a haematological or oncological diagnosis.

Will pathogen reduction of blood components harm more people than it helps in developed countries?

BACKGROUND

Blood-borne infectious diseases are a major impediment to the provision of safe blood. Pathogen reduction (PR) technologies have been approved for the treatment of plasma and platelet (PLT) concentrates to reduce infectious complications and graft-versus-host disease but product potency is adversely affected

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We reviewed published data describing PR technology for estimates of treated blood component physical and functional loss. These physical and functional losses were summed and projected onto measured effects of plasma and PLT dose in trauma resuscitation. The net benefits estimated as reduced infectious disease deaths were compared to net losses estimated as increased deaths from uncontrolled hemorrhage.

RESULTS

Transfusion-transmitted infectious diseases caused five or fewer acute deaths each year from 2009 through 2014 in the United States according to the Food and Drug Administration. In-hospital deaths from uncontrolled hemorrhage after trauma number more than 10,000 yearly and are reduced by 4% to 15% with concentrated blood product resuscitation. The loss of 20% of plasma potency and 30% of PLT potency to PR is likely to be associated with 400 extra trauma deaths each year. Trauma represents a small fraction, perhaps 15%, of all massively transfused individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Resuscitation of massive hemorrhage may be limited by blood component potency as shown in our literature review and analysis. The safety-versus-potency trade involved with current blood plasma and PLT PR technology is likely to result in a net loss of life. Hemorrhagic risk from reduced blood product potency for patients with trauma and other indications for massive transfusion is an important consideration in risk-based decision making for implementing PR.

Aging of platelets stored for transfusion

A goal of platelet storage is to maintain the quality of platelets from the point of donation to the point of transfusion - to suspend the aging process. This effort is judged by clinical and laboratory measures with varying degrees of success. Recent work gives encouragement that platelets can be maintained ex vivo beyond the current 5 -7 day shelf life whilst maintaining their quality, as measured by posttransfusion recovery and survival. However, additional measures are needed to validate the development of technologies that may further reduce the aging of stored platelets, or enhance their hemostatic properties.

A study protocol for a randomised controlled trial evaluating clinical effects of platelet transfusion products: the Pathogen Reduction Evaluation and Predictive Analytical Rating Score (PREPAReS) trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopaenia frequently experience minor and sometimes severe bleeding complications. Unrestrictive availability of safe and effective blood products is presumed by treating physicians as well as patients. Pathogen reduction technology potentially offers the opportunity to enhance safety by reducing bacterial and viral contamination of platelet products along with a potential reduction of alloimmunisation in patients receiving multiple platelet transfusions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

To test efficacy, a randomised, single-blinded, multicentre controlled trial was designed to evaluate clinical non-inferiority of pathogen-reduced platelet concentrates treated by the Mirasol system, compared with standard plasma-stored platelet concentrates using the percentage of patients with WHO grade ≥ 2 bleeding complications as the primary endpoint. The upper limit of the 95% CI of the non-inferiority margin was chosen to be a ≤ 12.5% increase in this percentage. Bleeding symptoms are actively monitored on a daily basis. The adjudication of the bleeding grade is performed by 3 adjudicators, blinded to the platelet product randomisation as well as by an automated computer algorithm. Interim analyses evaluating bleeding complications as well as serious adverse events are performed after each batch of 60 patients. The study started in 2010 and patients will be enrolled up to a maximum of 618 patients, depending on the results of consecutive interim analyses. A flexible stopping rule was designed allowing stopping for non-inferiority or futility. Besides analysing effects of pathogen reduction on clinical efficacy, the Pathogen Reduction Evaluation and Predictive Analytical Rating Score (PREPAReS) is designed to answer several other pending questions and translational issues related to bleeding and alloimmunisation, formulated as secondary and tertiary endpoints.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained in all 3 participating countries. Results of the main trial and each of the secondary endpoints will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR2106; Pre-results.

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.

Neonatal Transfusion Medicine: Five Major Unanswered Research Questions for the Twenty-First Century

Blood component transfusions are important to the care of preterm neonates; however, their use in clinical practice often is not based on high levels of evidence. Five major questions for neonates are discussed: (1) What is the optimal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion threshold? (2) What is the optimal platelet transfusion threshold? (3) Does the storage age of an RBC unit affect outcomes? (4) Does RBC transfusion contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotizing enterocolitis? and (5) Which new practices should be used to prevent transfusion-transmitted infections? Although definitive answers to these questions do not exist, future research should help answer them.

Pathogen inactivation technologies for cellular blood components: an update

Nowadays patients receiving blood components are exposed to much less transfusion-transmitted infectious diseases than three decades before when among others HIV was identified as causative agent for the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and the transmission by blood or coagulation factors became evident. Since that time the implementation of measures for risk prevention and safety precaution was socially and politically accepted. Currently emerging pathogens like arboviruses and the well-known bacterial contamination of platelet concentrates still remain major concerns of blood safety with important clinical consequences, but very rarely with fatal outcome for the blood recipient. In contrast to the well-established pathogen inactivation strategies for fresh frozen plasma using the solvent-detergent procedure or methylene blue and visible light, the bench-to-bedside translation of novel pathogen inactivation technologies for cell-containing blood components such as platelets and red blood cells are still underway. This review summarizes the pharmacological/toxicological assessment and the inactivation efficacy against viruses, bacteria, and protozoa of each of the currently available pathogen inactivation technologies and highlights the impact of the results obtained from several randomized clinical trials and hemovigilance data. Until now in some European countries pathogen inactivation technologies are in in routine use for single-donor plasma and platelets. The invention and adaption of pathogen inactivation technologies for red blood cell units and whole blood donations suggest the universal applicability of these technologies and foster a paradigm shift in the manufacturing of safe blood.

Viral inactivation in hemotherapy: systematic review on inactivators with action on nucleic acids

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review on the photoinactivators used in hemotherapy, with action on viral genomes. The SciELO, Science Direct, PubMed and Lilacs databases were searched for articles. The inclusion criterion was that these should be articles on inactivators with action on genetic material that had been published between 2000 and 2010. The key words used in identifying such articles were "hemovigilance", "viral inactivation", "photodynamics", "chemoprevention" and "transfusion safety". Twenty-four articles on viral photoinactivation were found with the main photoinactivators covered being: methylene blue, amotosalen HCl, S-303 frangible anchor linker effector (FRALE), riboflavin and inactin. The results showed that methylene blue has currently been studied least, because it diminishes coagulation factors and fibrinogen. Riboflavin has been studied most because it is a photoinactivator of endogenous origin and has few collateral effects. Amotosalen HCl is effective for platelets and is also used on plasma, but may cause changes both to plasma and to platelets, although these are not significant for hemostasis. S-303 FRALE may lead to neoantigens in erythrocytes and is less indicated for red-cell treatment; in such cases, PEN 110 is recommended. Thus, none of the methods for pathogen reduction is effective for all classes of agents and for all blood components, but despite the high cost, these photoinactivators may diminish the risk of blood-transmitted diseases.

Pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used to prevent and treat bleeding in patients who are thrombocytopenic. Despite improvements in donor screening and laboratory testing, a small risk of viral, bacterial or protozoal contamination of platelets remains. There is also an ongoing risk from newly emerging blood transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs) for which laboratory tests may not be available at the time of initial outbreak.One solution to reduce further the risk of TTIs from platelet transfusion is photochemical pathogen reduction, a process by which pathogens are either inactivated or significantly depleted in number, thereby reducing the chance of transmission. This process might offer additional benefits, including platelet shelf-life extension, and negate the requirement for gamma-irradiation of platelets. Although current pathogen-reduction technologies have been proven significantly to reduce pathogen load in platelet concentrates, a number of published clinical studies have raised concerns about the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for post-transfusion platelet recovery and the prevention of bleeding when compared with standard platelets.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding in patients requiring platelet transfusions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to 18 February 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 18 February 2013), CINAHL (1982 to 18 February 2013) and the Transfusion Evidence Library (1980 to 18 February 2013). We also searched several international and ongoing trial databases and citation-tracked relevant reference lists. We requested information on possible unpublished trials from known investigators in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the transfusion of pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets. We did not identify any RCTs which compared the transfusion of one type of pathogen-reduced platelets with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author screened all references, excluding duplicates and those clearly irrelevant. Two authors then screened the remaining references, confirmed eligibility, extracted data and analysed trial quality independently. We requested and obtained a significant amount of missing data from trial authors. We performed meta-analyses where appropriate using the fixed-effect model for risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and used the I² statistic to explore heterogeneity, employing the random-effects model when I² was greater than 30%.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials comparing pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets. Nine trials assessed Intercept® pathogen-reduced platelets and one trial Mirasol® pathogen-reduced platelets. Two were randomised cross-over trials and the remaining eight were parallel-group RCTs. In total, 1422 participants were available for analysis across the 10 trials, of which 675 participants received Intercept® and 56 Mirasol® platelet transfusions. Four trials assessed the response to a single study platelet transfusion (all Intercept®) and six to multiple study transfusions (Intercept® (N = 5), Mirasol® (N = 1)) compared with standard platelets.We found the trials to be generally at low risk of bias but heterogeneous regarding the nature of the interventions (platelet preparation), protocols for platelet transfusion, definitions of outcomes, methods of outcome assessment and duration of follow-up.Our primary outcomes were mortality, 'any bleeding', 'clinically significant bleeding' and 'severe bleeding', and were grouped by duration of follow-up: short (up to 48 hours), medium (48 hours to seven days) or long (more than seven days). Meta-analysis of data from five trials of multiple platelet transfusions reporting 'any bleeding' over a long follow-up period found an increase in bleeding in those receiving pathogen-reduced platelets compared with standard platelets using the fixed-effect model (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15, I² = 59%); however, this meta-analysis showed no difference between treatment arms when using the random-effects model (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38).There was no evidence of a difference between treatment arms in the number of patients with 'clinically significant bleeding' (reported by four out of the same five trials) or 'severe bleeding' (reported by all five trials) (respectively, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21, I² = 2%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.12, I² = 51%). We also found no evidence of a difference between treatment arms for all-cause mortality, acute transfusion reactions, adverse events, serious adverse events and red cell transfusion requirements in the trials which reported on these outcomes. No bacterial transfusion-transmitted infections occurred in the six trials that reported this outcome.Although the definition of platelet refractoriness differed between trials, the relative risk of this event was 2.74 higher following pathogen-reduced platelet transfusion (RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.84 to 4.07, I² = 0%). Participants required 7% more platelet transfusions following pathogen-reduced platelet transfusion when compared with standard platelet transfusion (MD 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.11, I² = 21%), although the interval between platelet transfusions was only shown to be significantly shorter following multiple Intercept® pathogen-reduced platelet transfusion when compared with standard platelet transfusion (MD -0.51, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.37, I² = 0%). In trials of multiple pathogen-reduced platelets, our analyses showed the one- and 24-hour count and corrected count increments to be significantly inferior to standard platelets. However, one-hour increments were similar in trials of single platelet transfusions, although the 24-hour count and corrected count increments were again significantly lower.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of a difference in mortality, 'clinically significant' or 'severe bleeding', transfusion reactions or adverse events between pathogen-reduced and standard platelets. For a range of laboratory outcomes the results indicated evidence of some benefits for standard platelets over pathogen-reduced platelets. These conclusions are based on data from 1422 patients included in 10 trials. Results from ongoing or new trials are required to determine if there are clinically important differences in bleeding risk between pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions and standard platelet transfusions. Given the variability in trial design, bleeding assessment and quality of outcome reporting, it is recommended that future trials apply standardised approaches to outcome assessment and follow-up, including safety reporting.

Measuring bleeding as an outcome in clinical trials of prophylactic platelet transfusions

A 12-year-old girl with acute myeloid leukemia has completed her third cycle of chemotherapy and is in the hospital awaiting count recovery. Her platelet count today is 15 000 and, based on your institution's protocol, she should receive a prophylactic platelet transfusion. She has a history of allergic reactions to platelet transfusions and currently has no bleeding symptoms. The patient's mother questions the necessity of today's transfusion and asks what her daughter's risk of bleeding would be if the count is allowed to decrease lower before transfusing. You perform a literature search regarding the risk of bleeding with differing regimens for prophylactic platelet transfusions.

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.

[Pathogen reduction for platelets: available techniques and recent developments]

The will to reach for blood components a microbiological safety comparable to that of plasma-derived drugs led to the development of numerous pathogen reduction research programs for red blood cells and\or platelets in the 1990s. A consensus conference organized in 2007 allowed to define the main steps and precautions to be taken for the implementation of these processes. In the specific case of platelet concentrates, three processes stay this day in the run, even if they are not at the same development stage. A process using ultraviolet C only is at the stage of preclinical studies. The Mirasol® process, based on the activation of riboflavin by exposure to ultraviolet A and ultraviolet B is CE marked (class IIb), and a clinical study was published in 2010. The Intercept® process, involving the activation of a psoralen molecule by exposure to ultraviolet A, is CE marked (class III) since 2002, and has been licensed in France since 2005, in Germany since 2005 and in Switzerland since 2010. At least 12 clinical studies have been published. In regard to this last pathogen reduction process, the medical and scientific documentation, from in vitro investigations to post-marketing observational studies, is much more developed than the corresponding documentation of some innovative processes at the time of their generalization, such as the SAG-mannitol solution for red cell concentrates in 1979, leukoreduction filters for platelets and red cells concentrates in the 1990s, the solvent detergent therapeutic plasma in 1992 or the methylene blue therapeutic plasma in 2006.

[Photochemical inactivation of pathogens in platelets and plasma: five years of clinical use in routine and hemovigilance. Towards a change of paradigm in transfusion safety]

The transfusion of labile blood products is vital and essential for patients in absence of alternative treatment. Patients and doctors have always feared transfusion-transmitted infections by blood, blood components and blood-derived drugs. Photochemical inactivation of platelet concentrates and plasma, using a technique associating amotosalen and UVA, has been used for five years in a French region for the whole population and a large spectrum of patients, with efficacy and safety. It would seem wise to introduce labile blood products, submitted to pathogen inactivation by a technique already approved by a regulatory agency and not to wait for a perfect system including red blood cells concentrates. Universal implementation of pathogen inactivation in labile blood products is a major and key step to improve safety against infection in transfusion.

Current practice and future directions for optimization of platelet transfusions in patients with severe therapy-induced cytopenia

Platelet transfusions are mainly used for patients with thrombocytopenia due to bone marrow failure, especially cancer patients developing severe chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (e.g. patients with acute leukemia or other hematologic malignancies). A prophylactic transfusion strategy is now generally accepted in developed countries. Some clinical data, however, support the use of a therapeutic transfusion strategy at least for certain subsets of these patients. Several methodological approaches can then be used to evaluate the outcome of platelet transfusions, including peripheral blood platelet increments and bleeding assessments. Several factors will influence the efficiency of platelet transfusions; fever and ongoing hemorrhage are among the most important patient-dependent factors, but the number and quality of the transfused platelets are also important. The quality of transfused platelets can be evaluated by analyzing platelet activation, metabolism or senescence/apoptosis. Only evaluation of metabolism is included in international guidelines, but high-throughput methods for evaluation of activation and senescence/apoptosis are available and should be incorporated into routine clinical practice if future studies demonstrate that they reflect clinically relevant platelet characteristics. Finally, platelet transfusions have additional biological effects that may cause immunomodulation or altered angioregulation; at present it is not known whether these effects will influence the long-time prognosis of cancer patients. Thus, several questions with regard to the optimal use of platelet transfusions in cancer patients still need to be answered.

Meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials of the hemostatic efficacy and capacity of pathogen-reduced platelets

BACKGROUND

A recent independently funded randomized controlled trial (RCT; Br J Haematol 2010;150:209-17) questioned prevailing opinion concerning the hemostatic capacity of pathogen-reduced platelets (PLTs). Meta-analysis was used to calculate the effect of pathogen reduction (PR) of PLTs on hemostatic efficacy and capacity based on all available data and to investigate possible reasons for the variation in reported findings.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

RCTs allocating patients to receive routine PLT transfusions with pathogen-reduced or untreated PLTs and reporting on at least one of six hemostasis endpoints were eligible for analysis. Five RCTs of hemato-oncology patients met eligibility criteria. Endpoints determined by similar criteria in all RCTs were integrated by fixed-effects methods. Endpoints determined by different criteria were integrated by random-effects methods.

RESULTS

Studies were statistically homogeneous in all analyses. Pathogen-reduced PLTs were associated with a significant (p < 0.05) reduction in 1- and 24-hour posttransfusion corrected count increments (summary mean difference, 3260; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2450-4791; and summary mean difference, 3315; 95% CI, 2027-4603) as well as a significant increase in all and in clinically significant bleeding complications (summary odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.11-2.26; and summary OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.11-2.13). The frequency of severe bleeding complications did not differ.

CONCLUSION

The results of the recent RCT are not inconsistent with those of the earlier studies. Introduction of PR technologies in their current stage of development would result in an increase in mild and moderate (albeit not severe) bleeding complications, which the transfusion-medicine community must explicitly tolerate to reap the benefits from PR.

A systematic assessment of the quality of reporting for platelet transfusion studies

BACKGROUND

As evidence-based medicine assumes increasing importance, there is a need for high-quality reporting of clinical studies. A recent review of clinical platelet (PLT) studies indicated variability in reporting. We undertook a critical analysis of PLT transfusion studies to determine the quality of reporting.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A systematic MEDLINE search for clinical studies of PLT transfusion was performed to identify articles. Relevant observational studies (OBS) were critiqued using the STROBE checklist and randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) using the CONSORT checklist. Studies were further evaluated with a PLT-specific checklist developed by the authors. Observations were analyzed descriptively and using Pareto analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 772 articles were identified by the search. Eighty-six articles (23 RCTs and 63 OBS) met eligibility criteria. All RCTs, and a similar number of OBS (24), were randomly selected for analysis. Studies reported the scientific background and rationale, key results, and outcomes. OBS frequently did not consider bias and confounders. RCTs frequently did not explain bias, interim analyses, stopping rules, success of blinding, or weaknesses of multiple analyses. The PLT-specific critique found many studies adequately reported basics of the PLT product, PLT increment, and transfusion reactions. Studies frequently failed to report specific details of PLT compatibility, details of product preparation, and use of other blood products.

CONCLUSION

Recently published articles of clinical PLT transfusion share common strengths and weaknesses. The quality of reporting may be improved by providing guidelines to authors and journal editors that list the essential elements of a well-reported clinical study of PLT transfusion.

Pathogen inactivation/reduction of platelet concentrates: turning theory into practice

Background  Pathogen reduction technology (PRT) has been proven to reduce the residual risk of transmission of infectious agents. Reduction of various contaminating bacteriae, viruses and parasites by few to several log steps and efficiency to prevent GVHD has been shown. Aim  To evaluate and compare advantages and disadvantages of PRT available for practical application in platelets. Materials and Methods  PRT for the treatment of platelets is currently offered by two formats: Amotosalen (INTERCEPT, Cerus, Concord, CA, USA) and vitamin B2 (Mirasol, Caridian, Denver, USA). Results from different studies and our own experiences with the two techniques are compared and discussed. Results and Discussion  For both technologies, different groups of investigators have shown acceptable in-vitro results with respect to functional and storage data for platelets stored for up to 5 days after production and before transfusion. Initial clinical studies showed no inferiority of the treated platelets in comparison to untreated controls in thrombocytopenic patients. However for both techniques a tendency towards lower CCI has been reported, which may be more pronounced in the platelets treated with the Intercept process. For introduction of PRT many countries require not only CE mark but licensing with the respective authorities since treatment for pathogen reduction is regarded as creating a 'new' blood product. With respect to a platelet loss during pathogen reduction it seems recommendable to increase the lower limit of platelet content of the product to 2.5 × 1011. Particularly for the Intercept system, where a considerable amount of platelets is lost in the purification of the product from Amotosalen, a change in the production process to increase the platelet yield may be necessary. Data from our group show a tendency for improved functional and storage parameters for platelets treated with the Mirasol process. Compared to conventional manufacturing of platelets by apheresis or pooling of buffy coats, pathogen reduction requires additional labour, space, and quality control. Shelf life of platelets is limited in most countries because of the risk of bacterial contamination (in Germany presently to 4 days). A prolongation to 5 or more days after pathogen reduction seems feasible but remains a topic for future studies. Conclusion  Results of in vitro and clinical studies of pathogen reduced platelets are promising. Larger clinical trials will help to determine whether PRT proves to be beneficial (reduction of transmission of infections, less alloimmunisation) and overall cost effective (bearing in mind that additional costs may be compensated for by omission of gamma irradiation and potential longer shelf life).

Preparation, storage and quality control of platelet concentrates

Patients with thrombocytopaenia need transfusions of platelet concentrates to prevent or stop bleeding. A platelet transfusion should provide platelets with good functionality. The quality of platelet concentrates (PCs) is affected by the preparation method and the storage conditions including duration of storage, type of storage container, and storage solution (plasma or an additive solution). Different in vivo and in vitro techniques can be used to analyse PCs. Platelets can be collected by apheresis technique, and from whole blood using either the buffy-coat or the platelet-rich plasma method. PCs can be gamma irradiated to prevent occurrence of graft-versus-host disease in the recipient. Pathogen inactivation procedures have been developed to prevent transmission of bacteraemia.

Pathogen inactivation: the definitive safeguard for the blood supply

CONTEXT

Pathogen inactivation provides a proactive approach to cleansing the blood supply. In the plasma fractionation and manufacturing industry, pathogen inactivation technologies have been successfully implemented resulting in no transmission of human immunodeficiency, hepatitis C, or hepatitis B viruses by US-licensed plasma derivatives since 1985. However, these technologies cannot be used to pathogen inactivate cellular blood components. Although current blood donor screening and disease testing has drastically reduced the incidence of transfusion-transmitted diseases, there still looms the threat to the blood supply of a new or reemerging pathogen. Of particular concern is the silent emergence of a new agent with a prolonged latent period in which asymptomatic infected carriers would donate and spread infection.

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarize the principles, challenges, achievements, prospective technologies, and future goals of pathogen inactivation of the blood supply.

DATA SOURCES

The current published English-language literature from 1968 through 2006 and a historical landmark article from 1943 are integrated into a review of this subject.

CONCLUSIONS

The ultimate goal of pathogen inactivation is to maximally reduce the transmission of potential pathogens without significantly compromising the therapeutic efficacy of the cellular and protein constituents of blood. This must be accomplished without introducing toxicities into the blood supply and without causing neoantigen formation and subsequent antibody production. Several promising pathogen inactivation technologies are being developed and clinically tested, and others are currently in use. Pathogen inactivation offers additional layers of protection from infectious agents that threaten the blood supply and has the potential to impact the safety of blood transfusions worldwide.

Transfusion-transmitted infections

Although the risk of transfusion-transmitted infections today is lower than ever, the supply of safe blood products remains subject to contamination with known and yet to be identified human pathogens. Only continuous improvement and implementation of donor selection, sensitive screening tests and effective inactivation procedures can ensure the elimination, or at least reduction, of the risk of acquiring transfusion transmitted infections. In addition, ongoing education and up-to-date information regarding infectious agents that are potentially transmitted via blood components is necessary to promote the reporting of adverse events, an important component of transfusion transmitted disease surveillance. Thus, the collaboration of all parties involved in transfusion medicine, including national haemovigilance systems, is crucial for protecting a secure blood product supply from known and emerging blood-borne pathogens.

Effect of extending the platelet storage time on platelet utilization: predictions from a mathematical model of prophylactic platelet support

Bacterial culturing (BCU) or photochemical treatment (PCT) of platelet (PLT) concentrates may permit extending the storage time to 7 days at the cost of decreased viability of transfused PLTs. This study was aimed at predicting the impact this may have on the routine management of patients on prophylactic PLT support. The method included a mathematical model that represents the dynamics of prophylactic PLT support with standard, BCU or PCT PLTs. Data on posttransfusion PLT kinetics and the effect of PCT or storage time on PLT recovery and survival were obtained from published studies. Variables that influenced the level of PLT usage were the proportion of transfusions supplied with PLT on the last day of shelf-life, the use of PCT and the assumed degree of synergy between clinical factors of PLT consumption and either PCT or storage time. In the reference-case scenario, extending the PLT shelf-life to 7 days by BCU or PCT increased by 9 and 19%, respectively, the number of PLT transfusions per patient-year. In the worst-case scenario, these figures rose to 27 and 38%, respectively. Despite more intensive PLT usage, in most scenarios, the time that patients spent at PLT counts <10 x 10(9) L(-1) increased. Extending the shelf-life of PLT products will increase PLT usage. Such increase may be disproportionately larger for patients with complex conditions if there is a synergic interaction between storage time or PCT and clinical factors of PLT consumption, an issue that is worth further clinical research.