Early and out-of-hospital use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma: An international assessment of utilization and feasibility.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) in the treatment of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome-2 infection has been controversial. Early administration of CCP before hospital admission offers a potential advantage. This manuscript summarizes current trials of early use of CCP and explores the feasibility of this approach in different countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) CCP working group. We recorded respondents' input on existing trials on early/outpatient CCP and out-of-hospital (OOH)/home transfusion (HT) practices in their countries and feedback on challenges in initiating home CCP infusion programmes. In addition, details of existing trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov were summarized. RESULTS: A total of 31 country representatives participated. Early/OOH CCP transfusion studies were reported in the United States, the Netherlands, Spain and Brazil. There were a total of six published and five ongoing trials on the prophylactic and therapeutic early use of CCP. HT was practised in Australia, the UK, Belgium, France, Japan, Nigeria, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Norway, the United States and some provinces in Canada. Thirty-four representatives indicated a lack of OOH CCP or HT in their institutions and countries. Barriers to implementation of OOH/HT included existing legislation, lack of policies pertaining to outpatient transfusion, and associated logistical challenges, including lack of staffing and resources. CONCLUSION: Early administration of CCP remains a potential option in COVID-19 management in countries with existing OOH/HT programmes. Legislation and regulatory bodies should consider OOH/HT practice for transfusion in future pandemics.

Patient blood management interventions do not lead to important clinical benefits or cost-effectiveness for major surgery: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patient blood management (PBM) interventions aim to improve clinical outcomes by reducing bleeding and transfusion. We assessed whether existing evidence supports the routine use of combinations of these interventions during and after major surgery. METHODS: Five systematic reviews and a National Institute of Health and Care Excellence health economic review of trials of common PBM interventions enrolling participants of any age undergoing surgery were updated. The last search was on June 1, 2019. Studies in trauma, burns, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, gynaecology, dentistry, or critical care were excluded. The co-primary outcomes were: risk of receiving red cell transfusion and 30-day or hospital all-cause mortality. Treatment effects were estimated using random-effects models and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity assessments used I2. Network meta-analyses used a frequentist approach. The protocol was registered prospectively (PROSPERO CRD42018085730). RESULTS: Searches identified 393 eligible randomised controlled trials enrolling 54 917 participants. PBM interventions resulted in a reduction in exposure to red cell transfusion (RR=0.60; 95% CI 0.57, 0.63; I2=77%), but had no statistically significant treatment effect on 30-day or hospital mortality (RR=0.93; 95% CI 0.81, 1.07; I2=0%). Treatment effects were consistent across multiple secondary outcomes, sub-groups and sensitivity analyses that considered clinical setting, type of intervention, and trial quality. Network meta-analysis did not demonstrate additive benefits from the use of multiple interventions. No trial demonstrated that PBM was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: In randomised trials, PBM interventions do not have important clinical benefits beyond reducing bleeding and transfusion in people undergoing major surgery.

Prophylactic platelet transfusions in patients with blood malignancies: cost analysis of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: This cost analysis uses data from a randomized trial comparing a no prophylaxis versus prophylactic platelet (PLT) transfusion policy (counts <10 × 10(9) /L) in adult patients with hematologic malignancies. Results are presented for all patients and separately for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) (autoHSCT) and chemotherapy/allogeneic HSCT (chemo/alloHSCT) patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were collected to 30 days on PLT and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, major bleeds, serious adverse events, critical care, and hematology ward stay. Data were costed using 2011 to 2012 UK unit costs and converted into US$. Sensitivity analyses were performed on uncertain cost variables. RESULTS: Across the whole trial no prophylaxis saved costs compared to prophylaxis: -$1760 per patient (95% confidence interval [CI], -$3250 to -$249; p < 0.05). For autoHSCT patients there was no cost difference between arms: -$110 per patient (95% CI, -$1648 to $1565; p = 0.89). For chemo/alloHSCT patients no prophylaxis cost significantly less than prophylaxis: -$5686 per patient (95% CI, -$8580 to -$2853; p < 0.01). The cost impact of no prophylaxis differed significantly between subgroups. Sensitivity analyses varying daily treatment costs and ward stay for chemo/alloHSCT patients reduced cost differences to -$941 per patient (p = 0.21) across the whole trial and -$2927 per patient (p < 0.05) in chemo/alloHSCT subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether a no-prophylaxis policy saves costs overall. In chemo/alloHSCT patients cost savings are apparent but their magnitude is sensitive to a number of variables and must be considered alongside clinical data showing increased bleeding rates. In autoHSCT patients savings generated through lower PLT use in no-prophylaxis arm were offset by cost increases elsewhere, for example, additional RBC transfusions. Cost-effectiveness analyses of alternative PLT transfusion policies simultaneously considering costs and patient-reported outcomes are warranted.