Challenges associated with access to plasma-derived medicinal products in low middle-income and low-income countries

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Plasma-derived medicinal products (PDMPs) are essential to treat many chronic conditions such as haemophilia and primary immunodeficiency. Patients living in low middle-income and low-income countries (LMICs and LICs, respectively) have limited access to PDMPs. The aim of this article is to explore the challenges of accessing PDMPs in LMICs and LICs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of the literature and reports on blood safety, plasma production and its utilization to produce PDMPs in LMICs and LICs was carried out.

RESULTS

There is huge wastage of recovered plasma in LMICs and LICs as a result of a lack of good manufacturing practice (GMP) in the production of plasma for fractionation. Together with the high cost of imported PDMP procurement, patients have limited access to such products.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to improve the situation by using domestically sourced plasma through the initiation of local plasma programmes through a stepwise approach to improve access to PDMPs in LMICs and LICs.

The Evolution of the Safety of Plasma Products from Pathogen Transmission-A Continuing Narrative

Chronic recipients of plasma products are at risk of infection from blood-borne pathogens as a result of their inevitable exposure to agents which will contaminate a plasma manufacturing pool made up of thousands of individual donations. The generation of such a pool is an essential part of the large-scale manufacture of these products and is required for good manufacturing practice (GMP). Early observations of the transmission of hepatitis by pooled plasma and serum led to the incorporation of heat treatment of the albumin solution produced by industrial Cohn fractionation of plasma. This led to an absence of pathogen transmission by albumin over decades, during which hepatitis continued to be transmitted by other early plasma fractions, as well as through mainstream blood transfusions. This risk was decreased greatly over the 1960s as an understanding of the epidemiology and viral aetiology of transfusion-transmitted hepatitis led to the exclusion of high-risk groups from the donor population and the development of a blood screening test for hepatitis B. Despite these measures, the first plasma concentrates to treat haemophilia transmitted hepatitis B and other, poorly understood, forms of parenterally transmitted hepatitis. These risks were considered to be acceptable given the life-saving nature of the haemophilia treatment products. The emergence of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as a transfusion-transmitted infection in the early 1980s shifted the focus of attention to this virus, which proved to be vulnerable to a number of inactivation methods introduced during manufacture. Further developments in the field obviated the risk of hepatitis C virus (HCV) which had also infected chronic recipients of plasma products, including haemophilia patients and immunodeficient patients receiving immunoglobulin. The convergence of appropriate donor selection driven by knowledge of viral epidemiology, the development of blood screening now based on molecular diagnostics, and the incorporation of viral inactivation techniques in the manufacturing process are now recognised as constituting a "safety tripod" of measures contributing to safety from pathogen transmission. Of these three components, viral inactivation during manufacture is the major contributor and has proven to be the bulwark securing the safety of plasma derivatives over the past thirty years. Concurrently, the safety of banked blood and components continues to depend on donor selection and screening, in the absence of universally adopted pathogen reduction technology. This has resulted in an inversion in the relative safety of the products of blood banking compared to plasma products. Overall, the experience gained in the past decades has resulted in an absence of pathogen transmission from the current generation of plasma derivatives, but maintaining vigilance, and the surveillance of the emergence of infectious agents, is vital to ensure the continued efficacy of the measures in place and the development of further interventions aimed at obviating safety threats.

Plasma procurement and plasma product safety in light of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of the plasma industry

This review, written from the perspective of the plasma industry, discusses plasma procurement and plasma product safety in light of the COVID‐19 pandemic. The COVID‐19 pandemic impacted the whole world and, therefore, not unexpectedly, the pharmaceutical industry too. In spite of this, the plasma protein industry has continued to provide life saving therapies to critically ill patients. Moreover, companies have collected COVID convalescent plasma (CP) to support development of investigational therapies, for example, hyperimmune globulins to potentially treat SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, and collaborated with those collecting COVID CP for direct transfusion, which has been made available under emergency use in the United States. For plasma that is fractionated to become a therapy, general knowledge of coronaviruses and numerous new studies on the structure and function of SARS‐CoV‐2 provide reassurance that existing industry precautions, including donor selection, as well as virus inactivation and removal steps during the manufacturing process are sufficient to maintain the high standards of virus safety of plasma products. The pandemic also revealed the vulnerability and inadequacy of the current plasma ecosystem. There is a need for more plasma to be collected around the world to meet the growing need for safe and efficacious plasma‐derived therapies. This requires outdated regulatory and policy restrictions to be realigned with current scientific evidence. More countries around the world should be in a position to contribute to global supply of plasma so that patients with life‐threatening conditions ‐ and often no alternative therapeutic solutions ‐ have better access to care.

Blood, blood components, plasma, and plasma products

This review of 2018 publications identifies side effects of blood, blood components, and plasma products. In addition, albumin, blood transfusion (erythrocytes, granulocytes, and platelets), blood substitutes (hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers), plasma products (alpha1-antitrypsin, C1 esterase inhibitor concentrate, cryoprecipitate, and fresh frozen plasma), plasma substitutes (etherified starches, and gelatin), globulins (intravenous immunoglobulin, subcutaneous immunoglobulin, and anti-D immunoglobulin), coagulation proteins (factor I, factor II, factor VIIa, factor VIII, factor IX, prothrombin complex concentrate, antithrombin III, and von Willebrand factor/factor VIII concentrates), erythropoietin and derivatives, thrombopoietin and receptor agonists, transmission of infectious agents through blood donation, and stem cells are reviewed. This chapter informs the reader about newly recognized and published data in the blood product domain.

Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in 2 Plasma Product Recipients, United Kingdom

Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD) has not been previously reported in patients with clotting disorders treated with fractionated plasma products. We report 2 cases of sCJD identified in the United Kingdom in patients with a history of extended treatment for clotting disorders; 1 patient had hemophilia B and the other von Willebrand disease. Both patients had been informed previously that they were at increased risk for variant CJD because of past treatment with fractionated plasma products sourced in the United Kingdom. However, both cases had clinical and investigative features suggestive of sCJD. This diagnosis was confirmed in both cases on neuropathologic and biochemical analysis of the brain. A causal link between the treatment with plasma products and the development of sCJD has not been established, and the occurrence of these cases may simply reflect a chance event in the context of systematic surveillance for CJD in large populations.

SIPPET: methodology, analysis and generalizability

The development of anti-FVIII neutralizing alloantibodies (inhibitors), occurring in about one-third of previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe haemophilia A, depends on various genetic and environmental risk factors. Several previous studies have reported on the immunogenicity of FVIII concentrates, and due to differences in study design, study period, inhibitor testing frequency and follow-up duration the results were inconclusive. The first randomized trial on this unresolved question (SIPPET) included 251 previously untreated or minimally treated patients with severe haemophilia A treated with either a single plasma-derived FVIII (pdFVIII) containing VWF or a recombinant FVIII (rFVIII). The results showed an 87% higher rate of inhibitor development for rFVIII than pdFVIII during the first 50 exposure days of treatment. These results generated interest by patient organizations, physicians and regulatory agencies. This manuscript summarizes answers to the main questions that arose after the full publication of SIPPET.