Healthcare provider's perceptions of bleeding in patients with acute leukaemia undergoing induction chemotherapy: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding is a primary outcome for many transfusion-related trials in acute leukaemia (AL) patients, typically graded using the World Health Organisation (WHO) bleeding scale (clinically significant bleed (CSB) is ≥grade 2). This composite outcome fails to differentiate minor bleeds that may not be significant, poorly represents the total burden of bleeding and lacks input from healthcare providers (HCPs) and patients. As part of a multi-step project to create a better bleeding tool for trials, our objective was to identify HCPs' perspectives on the components of CSB in AL patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using qualitative description, we interviewed 19 physicians and nurses who care for AL patients undergoing induction chemotherapy. Participants were recruited from professional organisations, networks and social media. An inductive approach to conventional content analysis was used. RESULTS: HCPs identified features of CSB as the anatomical site of bleeding, amount of bleeding, need for intervention and changes in vital signs. Using these characteristics, bleeding events were categorised into three groups: clinically significant, could evolve into a CSB and not clinically significant. HCPs considered the patient's condition, bleeding history and clinical intuitions when deciding whether a bleed could escalate into serious bleeding. DISCUSSION: Using data from HCPs, we categorised bleeds as clinically significant, could evolve into a CSB, and not significant. A study of patients' perspectives on the importance of different kinds of bleeding is the next step to creating a bleeding definition that is informed by evidence, clinicians and patients.

A retrospective analysis of haemolytic reactions to intravenous immunoglobulin using data from the Transfusion-Transmitted Injuries Surveillance System (Ontario).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Haemolysis can occur following intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) infusion. Haemovigilance data were analysed using a novel approach for including two control groups with no haemolysis to IVIG. Objectives included a summary of all reactions to IVIG, rate estimates and analysis of haemolytic reactions including risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Canadian haemovigilance data from Ontario (2013-2021), IVIG distribution and transfusion data from the blood supplier, and data from a large local transfusion registry were used. An 'other-reactions' control group included patients with IVIG reactions that were not haemolytic, and registry patients with no-reaction were the 'no-reaction controls'. Descriptive analysis and two logistic regression models for the different control groups were performed. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and seventy reactions were included. Most common were febrile non haemolytic (26.1%), minor allergic (24.5%) and IVIG headache (15.3%) followed by haemolytic 10.9% (128/1170). Haemolytic reaction rates decreased over time: rates since 2020 estimated between 1.5 and 2.9/1000 kg IVIG used. The regression model for other-reaction controls identified two risk factors for haemolysis: non-O blood group recipients compared with group O recipients (p value = 0.0106) and IVIG dose per 10 g increase (OR 1.359; 95% CI 1.225-1.506). The model using no-reaction controls gave similar results and also showed no pre-medication was associated with a higher risk of haemolysis (OR 29.084; 95% CI 1.989-425.312). CONCLUSION: The frequency of haemolytic reactions has decreased over time. We confirmed non-O blood group recipients and IVIG dose as risk factors for haemolysis and raise the hypothesis that no pre-medication may increase the risk of haemolysis.