The determinants of granulocyte yield in 1198 granulocyte concentrates collected from unrelated volunteer donors mobilized with dexamethasone and granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor: a 13-year experience

A study on beneficial impact of the use of medium-molecular-weight hydroxyethyl starch in granulocyte apheresis using continuous-flow cell separator Spectra Optia: A retrospective single-center study at a tertiary care oncology center

INTRODUCTION

Granulocyte transfusion is one of the best therapeutic modalities in prolonged neutropenic patients with severe bacterial/fungal infections. Granulocyte harvest using conventional acid citrate dextrose (ACD) anticoagulant (ACD-A) by apheresis is not satisfactory in comparison to the use of hydroxyethyl starch (HES), but the latter is associated with various adverse events, especially with high-molecular-weight HES.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the beneficial impact of the use of medium-molecular-weight (MMW)-HES and trisodium citrate combination over ACD-A in granulocyte apheresis when using Spectra Optia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study comparing granulocyte harvest results with the use of ACD or HES and trisodium citrate combination. All the donors in both the groups received single 600 μg of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor subcutaneous injection followed by 8 mg of dexamethasone tablet 10-12 h and omnacortil 60 mg orally 3 h before harvest. A number of adverse incidents, if any, were observed and noted. Donor/procedure parameters were compared using Mann-Whitney U-test/unpaired t-test.

RESULTS

Granulocyte yield (mean: 3.29 × 1010/unit vs. 4.5 × 1010/unit in the ACD and HES groups, respectively, P ≤ 0.0001) was significantly better in the HES group. The collection efficiency was also better in the HES group (mean: 15.86% vs. 26.70% in the ACD and HES groups, respectively, P ≤ 0.0001) in the ACD and HES groups, respectively. There was no significant adverse event noted in any of these two groups.

CONCLUSION

In our study, granulocytes with optimum yield can be easily harvested with Spectra Optia cell separator using 6% HES (MMW) and trisodium citrate combination with standard 12-h interval gap between mobilization and harvest. This strategy can also have no or minimal extra cost burden to patients.

How are granulocytes for transfusion best used? The past, the present and the future

Granulocyte transfusions continue to be used in clinical practice, predominantly for treatment of refractory infection in the setting of severe neutropenia. There is biological plausibility for effectiveness in these patients with deficiencies of neutrophils, either as a consequence of disease or treatment. However, there is a chequered history of conducting and completing interventional trials to define optimal use, and many uncertainties remain regarding schedule and dose. Practice and clinical studies are severely limited by the short shelf life and viability of current products, which often restricts the timely access to granulocyte transfusions. In the future, methods are needed to optimise donor-derived granulocyte products. Options include use of manufactured neutrophils, expanded and engineered from stem cells. Further possibilities include manipulation of neutrophils to enhance their function and/or longevity. Granulocyte transfusions contain a heterogeneous mix of cells, and there is additional interest in how these transfusions may have immunomodulatory effects, including for potential uses as adjuncts for anti-cancer effects.

The effect of repeated stimulated granulocyte donations on hematopoietic indexes in donors: a 24-year donor center experience

BACKGROUND

Short- and long-term effects of mobilization regimens in hematopoietic stem cell and granulocyte donors have been well characterized. In this study, we examined the longitudinal hematopoietic changes related to repeat stimulated granulocyte donation.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Complete blood counts for consecutive granulocyte donors between October 1994 and May 2017 were compared to unstimulated granulocyte donors. Plateletpheresis donors served as controls. The longitudinal change in precollection white blood cell (WBC) counts for these donor groups were modeled using a linear mixed-effects model. The investigated variables were granulocyte, lymphocyte, and monocyte counts and the granulocyte collection yield. Contrasts were performed to explore the effect of donation number on precollection counts.

RESULTS

For the granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor plus dexamethasone (G-CSF/Dex)-stimulated group, both the granulocyte and the lymphocyte counts decreased 6.51 × 10⁹ /L (-23.1%, p < 0.001) and 0.21 × 10⁹ /L (-20.4%, p < 0.001), respectively, between Donation 1 and Donation 20. This effect was still present at the 3- to 4-year interval (b = -0.0008313, SE = 0.00029, p = 0.004). For the unstimulated donor group between Donation 1 and Donation 20, the lymphocyte count decreased by 0.62 × 10⁹ /L (-51.5%, p < 0.001). This effect was only significant up to Year 2 (b = -0.0026, SE = 0.0010, p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Past granulocyte donations were found to have a statistically strong negative effect on precollection granulocyte counts and lymphocyte counts and decreased granulocyte yield both in the G-CSF/Dex-stimulated donors and the unstimulated donors. In this statistical model, for both these groups, the effect of past donations on granulocyte and WBC counts were still detectable 2 years later.

Granulocyte transfusions in children and adults with hematological malignancies: benefits and controversies

Bacterial and fungal infections continue to pose a major clinical challenge in patients with prolonged severe neutropenia after chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). With the advent of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to mobilize neutrophils in healthy donors, granulocyte transfusions have been broadly used to prevent and/or treat life-threatening infections in patients with severe febrile neutropenia and/or neutrophil dysfunction. Although the results of randomized controlled trials are inconclusive, there are suggestions from pilot and retrospective studies that granulocyte transfusions may benefit selected categories of patients. We will critically appraise the evidence related to the use of therapeutic granulocyte transfusions in children and adults, highlighting current controversies in the field and discussing complementary approaches to modulate phagocyte function in the host.

Role of granulocyte transfusions in invasive fusariosis: systematic review and single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Invasive Fusarium infection is relatively refractory to available antifungal agents. Invasive fusariosis (IF) occurs almost exclusively in the setting of profound neutropenia and/or systemic corticosteroid use. Treatment guidelines for IF are not well established, including the role of granulocyte transfusions (GTs) to counter neutropenia.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review, identifying IF cases where GTs were used as adjunctive therapy to antifungal agents and also report a single-center case series detailing our experience (1996-2012) of all IF cases treated with antifungal agents and GTs. In the systematic review cases, GTs were predominantly collected from nonstimulated donors whereas, in the case series, they were universally derived from dexamethasone- and granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor-stimulated donors.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients met inclusion criteria for the systematic review and 11 for the case series. Response rates after GTs were 30 and 91% in the review and case series, respectively. Survival to hospital discharge remained low at 30 and 45%, respectively. Ten patients in the systematic review and three in the case series failed to achieve hematopoietic recovery and none of these survived. In the case series, donor-stimulated GTs generated mean "same-day" neutrophil increments of 3.35 × 10(9)  ± 1.24 × 10(9) /L and mean overall posttransfusion neutrophil increments of 2.46 × 10(9)  ± 0.85 × 10(9) /L. Progressive decrements in neutrophil response to GTs in two cases were attributed to GT-related HLA alloimmunization.

CONCLUSION

In patients with IF, donor-stimulated GTs may contribute to high response rates by effectively bridging periods of neutropenia or marrow suppression. However, their utility in the absence of neutrophil recovery remains questionable.

Eighteen years experience of granulocyte donations-acceptable donor safety?

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte transfusions are given to patients with life-threatening infections, refractory to treatment. The donors are stimulated with corticosteroids ± granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). However, data regarding the donors' safety is sparse. The objective was therefore to evaluate short- and long-term adverse events (AE) in G-CSF stimulated donors.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

All consecutive granulocyte donors from 1994 to 2012 were identified through our registry. From the donation records, the number of aphereses, stimulation therapy, AE, blood values post donation, and recent status were evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-four volunteer donors were mobilized for 359 collections. Age at first granulocyte donation was 43 years (median; range 19-64 years). Follow-up was 60 months (median; range 0-229 months). The dose of G-CSF per collection was 3.8 ug/kg body weight (median; range 1.6-6.0 ug/kg). Sedimentation agent was HES. Short-term AE were mild. Blood values 4 weeks post donation with minor reductions/elevations mostly resolved in later donations. Fourteen donors were excluded from the registry due to hypertension (4), diabetes (2), atrial flutter (1), breast carcinoma (1), urethral carcinoma in situ (1), MGUS (1), thrombosis (1), anaphylaxis (1), primary biliary cirrhosis (1), and unknown (1). Three donors are deceased due to diabetes, acute myocardial infarction, and unknown cause. All excluded/deceased donors except one were excluded/died at least 6 months after first granulocyte donation.

CONCLUSION

No serious short-term AE were observed. Due to the variability of diagnoses among excluded/deceased donors, we propose that it is less likely that granulocyte donations have a causative impact on these donors' exclusion or death.

Granulocyte Transfusion Therapy

Bacterial and fungal infections continue to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in severely neutropenic patients undergoing aggressive chemotherapy regimens or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Traditional granulocyte transfusion therapy, a logical approach in treating these infections, has been available for many years, and several controlled studies have shown this therapy to be useful. However, granulocyte transfusion therapy fell out of favor because the results were not clinically impressive, and adverse results were reported. These disappointing results were felt to be, in part, because of the low doses of granulocytes provided. More recent studies have attempted to increase the numbers of transfused cells by stimulating normal granulocyte donors with G-CSF (+/-corticosteroids). With these techniques, the number of granulocytes transfused can be increased 3-4 fold. The cells have been shown to circulate in recipients, and daily transfusions are capable of maintaining normal or near-normal blood neutrophil counts in previously severely neutropenic patients. The cells appear to function normally by a variety of in vitro and in vivo tests. Clinical benefit, as defined by survival or clearance of infection, has not been definitively determined. Results of an ongoing randomized controlled clinical trial should be available in the near future.

Efficacy and side effects of granulocyte collection in healthy donors

BACKGROUND

We report on the efficacy and side effects of granulocyte collection, which is comparatively infrequently performed in Germany.

METHODS

Data from 378 healthy donors who underwent 914 granulocyte collections between 1999 and 2007 were retrospectively analyzed. Donors received G-CSF (lenograstim) at a median dose of 5.58 (3.25-7.36) μg/kg body weight with (n = 243) or without (n = 57) 4 mg dexamethasone. Side effects were recorded by donor monitoring and interview (questionnaire).

RESULTS

The median granulocyte yield in apheresis products was 8.47 × 10(10) (3.07-14.92 × 10(10)). Granulocyte yields correlated significantly with gender, baseline WBC, PMN and PLT counts, and nicotine consumption. Dexamethasone and lenograstim administration was more effective than lenograstim administration alone (p < 0.001). Side effects of granulocyte mobilization were generally mild: bone pain in 31.4%, headache in 19.6%, and fatigue in 15.7% of donors. During follow-up (4 weeks), pruritus and/or exanthema were reported in 17.6% of donors.

CONCLUSIONS

Granulocyte mobilization with lenograstim with or without dexamethasone was a safe and effective regimen for granulocyte mobilization. Side effects were tolerable and milder than those seen in peripheral blood stem cell donors. Long-term monitoring of granulocyte donors is important to establish optimal standards for the procedure.

Impact of the mobilization regimen and the harvesting technique on the granulocyte yield in healthy donors for granulocyte transfusion therapy

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte mobilization and harvesting, the two major phases of granulocyte collection, have not been standardized.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The data on 123 granulocyte collections were retrospectively investigated for the effect of the mobilization regimen and the harvesting technique. After a single subcutaneous dose (600 µg) of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) with (n = 68) or without (n = 40) 8 mg of orally administered dexamethasone, 108 granulocyte donors underwent granulocyte collections. Moreover, 15 peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) donors who had received 400 µg/m2 or 10 µg/kg G-CSF for 5 days underwent granulocyte collections on the day after the last PBSC collections (PBSC-GTX donors). Granulocyte harvesting was performed by leukapheresis with (n = 108) or without (n = 15) using high-molecular-weight hydroxyethyl starch (HES).

RESULTS

Granulocyte donors who received mobilization with G-CSF plus dexamethasone produced significantly higher granulocyte yields than those who received G-CSF alone (7.2 × 10(10)  ± 2.0 × 10(10) vs. 5.7 × 10(10)  ± 1.7 × 10(10) , p = 0.006). PBSC-GTX donors produced a remarkably high granulocyte yield (9.7 × 10(10)  ± 2.3 × 10(10) ). The use of HES was associated with better granulocyte collection efficiency (42 ± 7.8% vs. 10 ± 9.1%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

G-CSF plus dexamethasone produces higher granulocyte yields than G-CSF alone. Granulocyte collection from PBSC donors appears to be a rational strategy, since it produces high granulocyte yields when the related patients are at a high risk for infection and reduces difficulties in finding granulocyte donors. HES should be used in apheresis procedures.

How do we collect better granulocyte?

We studied retrospectively the factors affecting the product quality in 459 donor granulocyte apheresis procedures from 420 donors for 71 neutropenic patients from 2004 to 2010 in a single center. The counts of the granulocyte and platelet collected were measured to evaluate the product quality. The data was analyzed to determine a possible relationship between product quality and several parameters including gender, preleukapheresis neutrophil count, type of anticoagulation and separator type and mode of the apheresis system. We found that collection of better granulocyte is possible from a donor in a single procedure by changing anticoagulation type and separator mode during apheresis.

Adverse events and safety issues in blood donation--a comprehensive review

Although blood donation is generally safe, a variety of risks and complications exist, the most common being iron deficiency, vasovagal reactions and citrate-related events. In the last decades, extensive efforts have significantly improved recipient and product safety, but there is still great potential to optimise donor care. Many therapies in modern medicine depend on the prompt availability of blood products, therefore it is crucial to maintain a motivated and healthy donor pool in view of a limited number of healthy volunteers willing and able to give blood or blood components. We present a comprehensive review on adverse events addressing all types of blood donation including whole blood, plasma, platelet, peripheral blood stem cell, leucocyte and bone marrow donation. In addition, we outline strategies for the prevention and treatment of these events and give a blueprint for future research in this field.

Treatment of severe neutropenic sepsis with granulocyte transfusion in the current era--experience from an adult haematology unit in Singapore

OBJECTIVES

Granulocyte transfusion's (GT) efficacy among adult severe neutropenic sepsis (SNS) patients remains uncertain. We assessed GT's efficacy and its determinants among SNS patients in an adult haematology unit. The feasibility and safety of granulocyte donation (GD) and determinants of granulocyte yield were also evaluated.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of granulocyte donors and recipients from March 2008 to October 2009.

RESULTS

Donors: Sixty GDs with a median WBC yield (WBCY) of 65·49 (31·30-131·72) × 10(9) were collected from 48 donors (9 repeat donors) using hydroxyethyl starch and intermittent flow centrifugation aphaeresis after receiving 8 mg dexamethasone and 300 mcg granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, with no serious adverse reactions (SAR). Six donations were urgently collected <3 h after pre-medication, the median WBCY of which was not significantly different from donations collected >12 h after pre-medication [59·18 (45·68-62·90) × 10(9) vs 67·45 (31·30-131·72) × 10(9) , P = 0·140]. Only pre-GD absolute neutrophil count (ANC) correlated with WBCY.

PATIENTS

Fifteen patients (12 acute leukaemias, 1 severe AA, 1 myelodysplastic syndrome and 1 lymphoma) received median 3 (2-9) ABO/RhD-matched GTs over 2-24 (median 7) days at 3-61 (median 28) days from severe neutropenia (SN) onset without SAR. They received intensive chemotherapies (N = 9), allogeneic transplant (N = 3), autologous stem cell rescue (N = 1) or immunosuppressants (N = 2). Fourteen had bacterial (N = 1) infections, fungal (N = 3) infections or both (N = 10) and one had severe viral pneumonitis; 63·6 and 30·8% of bacterial and fungal infections responded, respectively. Median ANC increase (ANC(increase) ) was 1·26 (0-9·25) × 10(9) at 5-20 (median 11) h post-GT. On multivariate analysis, each patient's median ANC(increase) only significantly correlated positively with median WBC dose/kg (P = 0·013). Five (33·3%) patients survived to discharge; the rest had infection-related mortality (IRM). IRM was significantly associated with inotropic requirement (P = 0·004), ventilatory requirement (P = 0·017) and persistent SN (P = 0·007).

CONCLUSION

GD is safe and feasible with good WBCY obtainable using our protocol. The effect of shortening pre-medication interval on WBCY which may prevent delay in initiating GT is worth evaluating. GT most likely benefits SNS patients with prospects of neutrophil recovery before haemodynamic deterioration. Large randomised trials investigating the role and timing of GT among such patients are required.