Transfusion Challenges in Patients with Hematological Malignancies in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Prospective Observational Study from the Uganda Cancer Institute.

Blood transfusion is fundamental in managing hematologic malignancies. We sought to evaluate the need and availability of blood products for patients with hematological malignancies at Uganda Cancer Institute. We prospectively studied the demand and supply of blood for patients with thrombocytopenia (platelet count ≤50 × 109/L), anemia (hemoglobin ≤10 g/dL), and bleeding (WHO grade ≥2). We used Poisson generalized estimating equation regression models for longitudinal binary outcomes. Among 91 patients, the median age was 26 years (IQR, 11-47). Thrombocytopenia occurred on ≥1 day in 58% of patients and on 49% of hospital days. Platelets were transfused to 39% of patients. The mean number of platelet units requested per day was 16.2 (range 0-30); 5.1 (range 0-15) were received. Anemia occurred on ≥1 day in 90% of patients; on 78% of days; and 68% received at least one blood transfusion. The mean number of blood units requested was 36.3 (range 8-57) units per day; 14 (range 0-30) were received. Bleeding occurred on ≥1 day in 19% of patients on 8% of hospital days. Thrombocytopenia and anemia were common, but product availability was substantially below that requested. We recommend increased blood collection and adherence to strict transfusion triggers as strategies to improve blood availability.

How low can you go: What is the safe threshold for platelet transfusions in patients with hematologic malignancy in sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of platelet transfusions in treatment of hematologic cancer patients, the optimal platelet count threshold for prophylactic transfusion is unknown in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: We followed patients admitted to the Uganda Cancer Institute with a hematological malignancy in 3 sequential 4-month time-periods using incrementally lower thresholds for prophylactic platelet transfusion: platelet counts ≤ 30 x 109/L in period 1, ≤ 20 x 109/L in period 2, and ≤ 10 x 109/L in period 3. Clinically significant bleeding was defined as WHO grade ≥ 2 bleeding. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to compare the frequency of clinically significant bleeding and platelet transfusions by study period, adjusting for age, sex, cancer type, chemotherapy, baseline platelet count, and baseline hemoglobin. RESULTS: Overall, 188 patients were enrolled. The median age was 22 years (range 1-80). Platelet transfusions were given to 42% of patients in period 1, 55% in period 2, and 45% in period 3. These transfusions occurred on 8% of days in period 1, 12% in period 2, and 8% in period 3. In adjusted models, period 3 had significantly fewer transfusions than period 1 (RR = 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.9; p = 0.01) and period 2 (RR = 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.7; p<0.001). Eighteen patients (30%) had clinically significant bleeding on at least one day in period 1, 23 (30%) in period 2, and 15 (23%) in period 3. Clinically significant bleeding occurred on 8% of patient-days in period 1, 9% in period 2, and 5% in period 3 (adjusted p = 0.41). Thirteen (21%) patients died in period 1, 15 (22%) in period 2, and 11 (19%) in period 3 (adjusted p = 0.96). CONCLUSION: Lowering the threshold for platelet transfusion led to fewer transfusions and did not change the incidence of clinically significant bleeding or mortality, suggesting that a threshold of 10 x 109/L platelets, used in resource-rich countries, may be implemented as a safe level for transfusions in sub-Saharan Africa.

Survey to Assess Knowledge and Reported Practices Regarding Blood Transfusion Among Cancer Physicians in Uganda.

PURPOSE: Optimal decision making regarding blood transfusion for patients with cancer requires appropriate knowledge of transfusion medicine among physicians. We assessed blood transfusion knowledge, attitudes, and reported practices among physicians working at Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional self-administered survey of UCI physicians on their knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding blood transfusion was conducted from June to September 2014. In consultation with transfusion medicine experts, 30 questions were developed, including 10 questions for each of the following three domains: knowledge, attitudes, and practices. For the knowledge domain, we created a knowledge score equal to the number of questions correctly answered out of 10. RESULTS: Of 31 physicians approached, 90% participated. The mean knowledge score was 5.3 (median, 5.5), and 32% correctly answered at least seven of 10 questions. Almost all (96%) understood the importance of proper patient identification before transfusion and indicated identification error as the most common cause of fatal transfusion reactions. More than 60% of physicians acknowledged they lacked knowledge and needed training in transfusion medicine. Most physicians reported sometimes changing their mind about whether to provide a patient with a transfusion on the basis of opinion of colleagues and sometimes administering unnecessary transfusions because of influence from others. CONCLUSION: Although UCI physicians have some basic knowledge in transfusion, most reported gaps in their knowledge, and all expressed a need for additional education in the basics of blood transfusion. Transfusion training and evidence-based guidelines are needed to reduce inappropriate transfusions and improve patient care. Greater understanding of peer influence in transfusion decision making is required.