Lower or higher doses for prophylactic platelet transfusions: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Platelet transfusion in adults: An update

Many patients worldwide receive platelet components (PCs) through the transfusion of diverse types of blood components. PC transfusions are essential for the treatment of central thrombocytopenia of diverse causes, and such treatment is beneficial in patients at risk of severe bleeding. PC transfusions account for almost 10% of all the blood components supplied by blood services, but they are associated with about 3.25 times as many severe reactions (attributable to transfusion) than red blood cell transfusions after stringent in-process leukoreduction to less than 10⁶ residual cells per blood component. PCs are not homogeneous, due to the considerable differences between donors. Furthermore, the modes of PC collection and preparation, the safety precautions taken to limit either the most common (allergic-type reactions and febrile non-hemolytic reactions) or the most severe (bacterial contamination, pulmonary lesions) adverse reactions, and storage and conservation methods can all result in so-called PC "storage lesions". Some storage lesions affect PC quality, with implications for patient outcome. Good transfusion practices should result in higher levels of platelet recovery and efficacy, and lower complication rates. These practices include a matching of tissue ABH antigens whenever possible, and of platelet HLA (and, to a lesser extent, HPA) antigens in immunization situations. This review provides an overview of all the available information relating to platelet transfusion, from donor and donation to bedside transfusion, and considers the impact of the measures applied to increase transfusion efficacy while improving safety and preventing transfusion inefficacy and refractoriness. It also considers alternatives to platelet component (PC) transfusion.

Systematic reviews on platelet transfusions: Is there unnecessary duplication of effort? A scoping review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Platelet transfusions are used across multiple patient populations to prevent and correct bleeding. This scoping review aimed to map the currently available systematic reviews (SRs) and evidence-based guidelines in the field of platelet transfusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in seven databases for SRs on effectiveness (including dose and timing, transfusion trigger and ratio to other blood products), production modalities and decision support related to platelet transfusion. The following data were charted: methodological features of the SR, population, concept and context features, outcomes reported, study design and number of studies included. Results were synthesized in interactive evidence maps.

RESULTS

We identified 110 SRs. The majority focused on clinical effectiveness, including prophylactic or therapeutic transfusions compared to no platelet transfusion (34 SRs), prophylactic compared to therapeutic-only transfusion (8 SRs), dose, timing (11 SRs) and threshold for platelet transfusion (15 SRs) and the ratio of platelet transfusion to other blood products in massive transfusion (14 SRs). Furthermore, we included 34 SRs on decision support, of which 26 evaluated viscoelastic testing. Finally, we identified 22 SRs on platelet production modalities, including derivation (4 SRs), pathogen inactivation (6 SRs), leucodepletion (4 SRs) and ABO/human leucocyte antigen matching (5 SRs). The SRs were mapped according to concept and clinical context.

CONCLUSION

An interactive evidence map of SRs and evidence-based guidelines in the field of platelet transfusion has been developed and identified multiple reviews. This work serves as a tool for researchers looking for evidence gaps, thereby both supporting research and avoiding unnecessary duplication.

Improvement of Blood Processing and Safety by Automation and Pathogen Reduction Technology

Introduction

The objective of the present study was to describe the experience of the Blood and Tissues Bank of Aragon with the Reveos® Automated Blood Processing System and Mirasol® Pathogen Reduction Technology (PRT) System, comparing retrospectively routine quality data obtained in two different observation periods.

Methods

Comparing quality data encompassing 6,525 blood components from the period 2007-2012, when the semi-automated buffy coat method was used in routine, with 6,553 quality data from the period 2014-2019, when the Reveos system and subsequently the Mirasol system were implemented in routine.

Results

Moving from buffy coat to Reveos led to decreased discard rates of whole blood units (1.2 to 0.1%), increased hemoglobin content (48.1 ± 7.6 to 55.4 ± 6.6 g/unit), and hematocrit (58.9 ± 6.5% to 60.0 ± 4.9%) in red blood cell concentrates. Platelet concentrates (PCs) in both periods had similar yields (3.5 ×10¹¹). Whereas in the earlier period, PCs resulted from pooling 5 buffy coats, in the second period 25% of PCs were prepared from 4 interim platelet units. The mean level of factor VIII in plasma was significantly higher with Reveos (92.8 vs. 97.3 IU). Mirasol PRT treatment of PCs reduced expiry rates to 1.2% in 2019. One septic transmission was reported with a non-PRT treated PCs, but none with PRT-treated PCs.

Conclusion

Automation contributed to standardization, efficiency, and improvement of blood processing. Released resources enabled the effortless implementation of PRT. The combination of both technologies guaranteed the self-sufficiency and improvement of blood safety.

The Cost-effectiveness of Eltrombopag for the Treatment of Immune Thrombocytopenia in the United States

PURPOSE

Eltrombopag was evaluated as a second-line treatment for adult chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) in the 2006 Phase III RAISE (Eltrombopag for Management of Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia) randomized, placebo-controlled trial. More than 80% of patients reached satisfactory platelet counts within 2 weeks. However, the economic value of eltrombopag as a second-line treatment for ITP remains to be formally assessed. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating ITP with a comparable thrombopoietin receptor agonist (eltrombopag vs romiplostim).

METHODS

A Markov model was implemented over a lifetime time horizon to estimate the benefits and costs of each treatment. The model featured 3 health states based on current guidelines: (1) on treatment; (2) treatment failure/discontinuation; and (3) mortality. In line with therapeutic goals in ITP, model patients could experience 3 events: no bleeding, mild/moderate bleeding, or severe bleeding. Data on eltrombopag use were obtained from an open-label extension of previous Phase II/III trials, including RAISE. Romiplostim data were obtained from Phase III trials and an extension study. Lifetime overall survival was extrapolated by using treatment-specific mortality rates derived from severe bleeding and natural mortality rates. The costs of drugs, routine care, bleeding episodes, adverse events, and mortality were represented in the model.

FINDINGS

Eltrombopag-treated patients gained 17.58 life years and 14.68 quality-adjusted life years, whereas romiplostim-treated patients gained 17.52 life years and 14.67 quality-adjusted life years. The total lifetime cost of eltrombopag treatment was estimated at $1.58 million versus $2.13 million for romiplostim. Sensitivity analyses supported base case findings. Deterministic sensitivity analysis predicted the greatest sensitivity to the rates of severe bleeding, discontinuation, and natural mortality. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that eltrombopag would be an efficient use of resources at a $50,000 threshold in 52.8% of cases. In all probabilistic iterations, the total cost of eltrombopag treatment was lower than with romiplostim, primarily because of lower drug costs.

IMPLICATIONS

Clinical data were applied in an economic analysis, and eltrombopag exhibited economic dominance compared with romiplostim, driven largely by the reduced costs of primary therapy. This model was limited by a lack of specific patient-level data and robust data on the duration of secondary therapy, as well as by the fact that utilization values are likely conservative estimates for routine care use.

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.

Massive blood transfusion after the first cut in liver transplantation predicts renal outcome and survival

INTRODUCTION

Transfusion requirements of blood products may provide useful prognostic factors for the prediction of short-term patient mortality and renal outcome after liver transplantation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two hundred ninety-one consecutive liver transplants in adults were analysed retrospectively. Combined and living-related liver transplants were excluded. The amount of transfused packed red blood cells (PRBC) and units of platelets (UP) within the first 48 h were investigated as prognostic factors to predict short-term patient mortality and renal outcome. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis with area under the curve (AUC), Hosmer-Lemeshow tests and Brier scores were used to calculate overall model correctness, model calibration and accuracy of prognostic factors. Cut-off values were determined with the best Youden index.

RESULTS

The potential clinical usefulness of PRBC as a prognostic factor to predict 30-day mortality (cut-off 17.5 units) and post-transplant haemodialysis (cut-off 12.5 units) could be demonstrated with AUCs >0.7 (0.712 and 0.794, respectively). Hosmer-Lemeshow test results and Brier scores indicated good overall model correctness, model calibration and accuracy. The UP proved as an equally clinically useful prognostic factor to predict end-stage renal disease (cut-off 3.5 units; AUC = 0.763). The association of cut-off levels of PRBC with patient survival (p < 0.001, log-rank test) and dialysis-free survival (p < 0.001, log-rank test) was significant (cut-off levels 17.5 and 12.5 units, respectively) as well as the association of UP with dialysis-free survival (p < 0.001, log-rank test) (cut-off level 3.5 units).

CONCLUSIONS

The impressive discriminative power of these simple prognostic factors for the prediction of outcome after liver transplantation emphasizes the relevance of strategies to avoid excessive transfusion requirements.

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.

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.

Pooled platelet concentrates: an alternative to single donor apheresis platelets?

Three types of platelet concentrates (PC) are compared: PC either processed with the platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or the Buffy coat (BC) method from whole blood units and PC obtained by apheresis. Leuko-reduction (LR) pre-storage is advocated to improve quality of the PC during storage and reduce adverse reactions in recipients. Standardization of methods allow preparation of PC with comparable yields of approximately 400 x 10(9) platelets in pooled non-LR-PRP, approximately 370 x 10(9) in pooled LR-BC-PC and in LR apheresis PC the number of platelets can be targeted on 350 x 10(9) or more with devices of various manufacturers. While viral transmission can be prevented by outstanding laboratory tests, the risk of bacterial contamination should be reduced by improved arm disinfection, deviation of the first 20-30 ml of blood and culture or rapid detection assays of the PC pre-issue. In a large prospective multicenter trial no significant difference was observed between cultures of apheresis PC (n = 15,198): 0.09% confirmed positive units versus 0.06% in pooled BC-PC (n = 37,045), respectively. Though platelet activation as measured by CD62 expression may differ in vitro in PC obtained with various apheresis equipment, and also between PC processed with the two whole blood methods there is scarce literature about the clinical impact of these findings. In conclusion the final products of LR-PC derived from whole blood or obtained by apheresis can be comparable, provided the critical steps of the processing method are identified and covered and the process is in control.

Consensus and controversies in platelet transfusion: trigger for indication, and platelet dose

Platelet transfusion is about to commemorate its 50th year since its introduction in therapeutics. It is then surprising to see, that in spite of reaching this respectful age, we have not been able to definitely establish all the aspects related to its clinical use. Some of these facets are platelet transfusion threshold and the platelet dose to administer. Historically, two different transfusion triggers have been used for prophylactic and therapeutic platelet transfusions. For prophylactic platelet transfusion an increasing body of evidences suggests that a transfusion trigger of 10 x 10(9) per liter is appropriate for most clinical settings. In contrast, evidence for supporting a certain therapeutic transfusion trigger is lacking. Nevertheless, there is consensus that the platelet count should not be allowed to fall below 50 x 10(9) per liter in patients with acute bleeding. Another important aspect still pending of clear definition is the issue of the platelet dose to be transfused. It has been addressed by some small studies but a definite answer to this important clinical issue is, at least so far, still pending. The results of two ongoing trials, one sponsored by NIH through the Clinical Trials Network in Transfusion Medicine and Hemostasis and the other promoted by the BEST Collaborative Group are expected to help us to clearly defining the more effective and efficient way to transfuse platelet concentrates.

Efficacy and Adverse Events of Platelet Transfusion Product-Specific Differences

SUMMARY: TWO PREPARATIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PLATELET TRANSFUSION: single-donor apheresis platelet concentrates (APC) and pooled platelet concentrates (PPC) prepared from 4-6 whole blood units. Clear advantages of APC over PPC are a markedly reduced donor exposure of recipients, and easier logistics when attempting a complete supply with ABO-identical and Rh-compatible platelet concentrates. Regulations should aim at complete ABO-identical platelet transfusions because major and minor ABO-incompatible platelet transfusions are probably associated with significantly increased morbidity and mortality. The main advantage of PPC is lower costs. Preparation of PPC is however inevitably accompanied by substantial wastage of plasma and red cells. Only major supraregional blood transfusion centers can guarantee full-coverage supply with ABO-identical and Rh-compatible PPC. Whether APC are more effective than PPC and associated with fewer septic platelet transfusion reactions as shown in some but not all studies, has to be examined in future prospective controlled trials.