Pretransplant Desensitization of Donor-Specific Anti-HLA Antibodies with Plasmapheresis and Immunoglobulin Produces Equivalent Outcomes to Patients with No Donor Specific Antibodies in Haploidentical Hematopoietic Cell Transplant.

In patients requiring haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplant (haplo-HCT), the presence of donor specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSAs) is associated with high rates of primary graft failure and poor overall survival (OS). There is limited data regarding the effect of desensitization. Adult patients undergoing haplo-HCT at Washington University School of Medicine from 2009-2021 were identified. Patients were divided into three cohorts: no DSA, untreated DSA or treated DSA. DSA testing was performed. Desensitization therapy using plasmapheresis and IVIg (immunoglobulin) was performed. We retrospectively identified 304 patients for study inclusion. 14 of 30 patients with DSAs underwent desensitization. By day +2, 57% of patients cleared all DSAs. OS was expectedly worse in patients with untreated DSAs. There were similar results between treated DSA and patients without DSA (OS median: control: 352 days vs. treated: 1331 days vs. untreated: 137 days, p = 0.02). RFS was also significantly different between the groups however with similar RFS in treated DSA and control groups (RFS median: control: 248 vs. treated: 322 v. untreated: 119, p = 0.03). Desensitization before haplo-HCT produces similar outcomes to patients without DSAs. While the optimal desensitization protocol has not been established, all patients received a backbone of plasmapheresis and immunoglobulin.

Rates Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Treated With Convalescent Plasma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To examine the association of COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion with mortality and the differences between subgroups in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Patients and Methods: On October 26, 2022, a systematic search was performed for clinical studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the literature from January 1, 2020, to October 26, 2022. Randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies investigating COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion compared with standard of care treatment or placebo among hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included. The electronic search yielded 3841 unique records, of which 744 were considered for full-text screening. The selection process was performed independently by a panel of 5 reviewers. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were extracted by 5 independent reviewers in duplicate and pooled using an inverse-variance random effects model. The prespecified end point was all-cause mortality during hospitalization. Results: Thirty-nine randomized clinical trials enrolling 21,529 participants and 70 matched cohort studies enrolling 50,160 participants were included in the systematic review. Separate meta-analyses reported that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the control cohort for both randomized clinical trials (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.00) and matched cohort studies (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88). The meta-analysis of subgroups revealed 2 important findings. First, treatment with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with convalescent plasma containing low antibody levels (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.99). Second, earlier treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the later treatment cohort (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.82). Conclusion: During COVID-19 convalescent plasma use was associated with a 13% reduced risk of mortality, implying a mortality benefit for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, particularly those treated with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels treated earlier in the disease course.

Red Blood Cell Transfusion: 2023 AABB International Guidelines.

Importance: Red blood cell transfusion is a common medical intervention with benefits and harms. Objective: To provide recommendations for use of red blood cell transfusion in adults and children. Evidence Review: Standards for trustworthy guidelines were followed, including using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods, managing conflicts of interest, and making values and preferences explicit. Evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials was reviewed. Findings: For adults, 45 randomized controlled trials with 20 599 participants compared restrictive hemoglobin-based transfusion thresholds, typically 7 to 8 g/dL, with liberal transfusion thresholds of 9 to 10 g/dL. For pediatric patients, 7 randomized controlled trials with 2730 participants compared a variety of restrictive and liberal transfusion thresholds. For most patient populations, results provided moderate quality evidence that restrictive transfusion thresholds did not adversely affect patient-important outcomes. Recommendation 1: for hospitalized adult patients who are hemodynamically stable, the international panel recommends a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence). In accordance with the restrictive strategy threshold used in most trials, clinicians may choose a threshold of 7.5 g/dL for patients undergoing cardiac surgery and 8 g/dL for those undergoing orthopedic surgery or those with preexisting cardiovascular disease. Recommendation 2: for hospitalized adult patients with hematologic and oncologic disorders, the panel suggests a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (conditional recommendations, low certainty evidence). Recommendation 3: for critically ill children and those at risk of critical illness who are hemodynamically stable and without a hemoglobinopathy, cyanotic cardiac condition, or severe hypoxemia, the international panel recommends a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence). Recommendation 4: for hemodynamically stable children with congenital heart disease, the international panel suggests a transfusion threshold that is based on the cardiac abnormality and stage of surgical repair: 7 g/dL (biventricular repair), 9 g/dL (single-ventricle palliation), or 7 to 9 g/dL (uncorrected congenital heart disease) (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence). Conclusions and Relevance: It is good practice to consider overall clinical context and alternative therapies to transfusion when making transfusion decisions about an individual patient.

Reducing perioperative red blood cell unit issue orders, returns, and waste using failure modes and effects analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical transfusion has an outsized impact on hospital-based transfusion services, leading to blood product waste and unnecessary costs. The objective of this study was to design and implement a streamlined, reliable process for perioperative blood issue ordering and delivery to reduce waste. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: To address the high rates of surgical blood issue requests and red blood cell (RBC) unit waste at a large academic medical center, a failure modes and effects analysis was used to systematically examine perioperative blood management practices. Based on identified failure modes (e.g., miscommunication, knowledge gaps), a multi-component action plan was devised involving process changes, education, electronic clinical decision support, audit, and feedback. Changes in RBC unit issue requests, returns, waste, labor, and cost were measured pre- and post-intervention. RESULTS: The number of perioperative RBC unit issue requests decreased from 358 per month (SD 24) pre-intervention to 282 per month (SD 16) post-intervention (p < .001), resulting in an estimated savings of 8.9 h per month in blood bank staff labor. The issue-to-transfusion ratio decreased from 2.7 to 2.1 (p < .001). Perioperative RBC unit waste decreased from 4.5% of units issued pre-intervention to 0.8% of units issued post-intervention (p < .001), saving an estimated $148,543 in RBC unit acquisition costs and $546,093 in overhead costs per year. DISCUSSION: Our intervention, designed based on a structured failure modes analysis, achieved sustained reductions in perioperative RBC unit issue orders, returns, and waste, with associated benefits for blood conservation and transfusion program costs.

Guidance on the Use of Convalescent Plasma to Treat Immunocompromised Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19 in immunocompromised (IC) patients. IC patients have a higher risk of persistent infection, severe disease, and death from COVID-19. Despite the continued clinical use of CCP to treat IC patients, the optimal dose, frequency/schedule, and duration of CCP treatment has yet to be determined, and related best practices guidelines are lacking. A group of individuals with expertise spanning infectious diseases, virology and transfusion medicine was assembled to render an expert opinion statement pertaining to the use of CCP for IC patients. For optimal effect, CCP should be recently and locally collected to match circulating variant. CCP should be considered for the treatment of IC patients with acute and protracted COVID-19; dosage depends on clinical setting (acute vs protracted COVID-19). CCP containing high-titer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies, retains activity against circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, which have otherwise rendered monoclonal antibodies ineffective.

Donor chimerism and immune reconstitution following haploidentical transplantation in sickle cell disease.

Introduction: We previously reported the initial results of a phase II multicenter transplant trial using haploidentical parental donors for children and aolescents with high-risk sickle cell disease achieving excellent survival with exceptionally low rates of graft-versus-host disease and resolution of sickle cell disease symptoms. To investigate human leukocyte antigen (HLA) sensitization, graft characteristics, donor chimerism, and immune reconstitution in these recipients. Methods: CD34 cells were enriched using the CliniMACS® system with a target dose of 10 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg with a peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMNC) addback dose of 2x105 CD3/kg in the final product. Pre-transplant HLA antibodies were characterized. Donor chimerism was monitored 1-24 months post-transplant. Comprehensive assessment of immune reconstitution included lymphocyte subsets, plasma cytokines, complement levels, anti-viral T-cell responses, activation markers, and cytokine production. Infections were monitored. Results: HLA antibodies were detected in 7 of 11 (64%) evaluable patients but rarely were against donor antigens. Myeloid engraftment was rapid (100%) at a median of 9 days. At 30 days, donor chimerism was 93-99% and natural killer cell levels were restored. By 60 days, CD19 B cells were normal. CD8 and CD4 T-cells levels were normal by 279 and 365 days, respectively. Activated CD4 and CD8 T-cells were elevated at 100-365 days post-transplant while naïve cells remained below baseline. Tregs were elevated at 100-270 days post-transplant, returning to baseline levels at one year. At one year, C3 and C4 levels were above baseline and CH50 levels were near baseline. At one year, cytokine levels were not significantly different from baseline. Discussion: These results suggest that haploidentical transplantation with CD34-enriched cells and peripheral blood mononuclear cell addback results in rapid engraftment, sustained donor chimerism and broad-based immune reconstitution.

Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB): COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma.

DESCRIPTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP. METHODS: These guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21 916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations. RECOMMENDATION 1 (OUTPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2 (INPATIENT): The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. RECOMMENDATION 3 (INPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4 (INPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 5 (PROPHYLAXIS): The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE STATEMENT: CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.

Access to and safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the United States Expanded Access Program: A national registry study.

BACKGROUND: The United States (US) Expanded Access Program (EAP) to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma was initiated in response to the rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19. While randomized clinical trials were in various stages of development and enrollment, there was an urgent need for widespread access to potential therapeutic agents. The objective of this study is to report on the demographic, geographical, and chronological characteristics of patients in the EAP, and key safety metrics following transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Mayo Clinic served as the central institutional review board for all participating facilities, and any US physician could participate as a local physician-principal investigator. Eligible patients were hospitalized, were aged 18 years or older, and had-or were at risk of progression to-severe or life-threatening COVID-19; eligible patients were enrolled through the EAP central website. Blood collection facilities rapidly implemented programs to collect convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Demographic and clinical characteristics of all enrolled patients in the EAP were summarized. Temporal patterns in access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma were investigated by comparing daily and weekly changes in EAP enrollment in response to changes in infection rate at the state level. Geographical analyses on access to convalescent plasma included assessing EAP enrollment in all national hospital referral regions, as well as assessing enrollment in metropolitan areas and less populated areas that did not have access to COVID-19 clinical trials. From April 3 to August 23, 2020, 105,717 hospitalized patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19 were enrolled in the EAP. The majority of patients were 60 years of age or older (57.8%), were male (58.4%), and had overweight or obesity (83.8%). There was substantial inclusion of minorities and underserved populations: 46.4% of patients were of a race other than white, and 37.2% of patients were of Hispanic ethnicity. Chronologically and geographically, increases in the number of both enrollments and transfusions in the EAP closely followed confirmed infections across all 50 states. Nearly all national hospital referral regions enrolled and transfused patients in the EAP, including both in metropolitan and in less populated areas. The incidence of serious adverse events was objectively low (<1%), and the overall crude 30-day mortality rate was 25.2% (95% CI, 25.0% to 25.5%). This registry study was limited by the observational and pragmatic study design that did not include a control or comparator group; thus, the data should not be used to infer definitive treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the EAP provided widespread access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma in all 50 states, including for underserved racial and ethnic minority populations. The study design of the EAP may serve as a model for future efforts when broad access to a treatment is needed in response to an emerging infectious disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT#: NCT04338360.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: A Graphical Mosaic of the Worldwide Evidence.

Convalescent plasma has been used worldwide to treat patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and prevent disease progression. Despite global usage, uncertainty remains regarding plasma efficacy, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have provided divergent evidence regarding the survival benefit of convalescent plasma. Here, we argue that during a global health emergency, the mosaic of evidence originating from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy should inform contemporary policy and healthcare decisions. Indeed, worldwide matched-control studies have generally found convalescent plasma to improve COVID-19 patient survival, and RCTs have demonstrated a survival benefit when transfused early in the disease course but limited or no benefit later in the disease course when patients required greater supportive therapies. RCTs have also revealed that convalescent plasma transfusion contributes to improved symptomatology and viral clearance. To further investigate the effect of convalescent plasma on patient mortality, we performed a meta-analytical approach to pool daily survival data from all controlled studies that reported Kaplan-Meier survival plots. Qualitative inspection of all available Kaplan-Meier survival data and an aggregate Kaplan-Meier survival plot revealed a directionally consistent pattern among studies arising from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy, whereby convalescent plasma transfusion was generally associated with greater patient survival. Given that convalescent plasma has a similar safety profile as standard plasma, convalescent plasma should be implemented within weeks of the onset of future infectious disease outbreaks.

The Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Mortality Among Patients With COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

To determine the effect of COVID-19 convalescent plasma on mortality, we aggregated patient outcome data from 10 randomized clinical trials, 20 matched control studies, 2 dose-response studies, and 96 case reports or case series. Studies published between January 1, 2020, and January 16, 2021, were identified through a systematic search of online PubMed and MEDLINE databases. Random effects analyses of randomized clinical trials and matched control data demonstrated that patients with COVID-19 transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a lower mortality rate compared with patients receiving standard treatments. Additional analyses showed that early transfusion (within 3 days of hospital admission) of higher titer plasma is associated with lower patient mortality. These data provide evidence favoring the efficacy of human convalescent plasma as a therapeutic agent in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

ABO blood group and SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in a convalescent donor population.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: ABO blood group may affect risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or severity of COVID-19. We sought to determine whether IgG, IgA and neutralizing antibody (nAb) to SARS-CoV-2 vary by ABO blood group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among eligible convalescent plasma donors, ABO blood group was determined via agglutination of reagent A1 and B cells, IgA and IgG were quantified using the Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA, and nAb titres were quantified using a microneutralization assay. Differences in titre distribution were examined by ABO blood group using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests. Adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) of high nAb titre (≥1:160) were estimated by blood group using multivariable modified Poisson regression models that adjusted for age, sex, hospitalization status and time since SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 202 potential donors, 65 (32%) were blood group A, 39 (19%) were group B, 13 (6%) were group AB, and 85 (42%) were group O. Distribution of nAb titres significantly differed by ABO blood group, whereas there were no significant differences in anti-spike IgA or anti-spike IgG titres by ABO blood group. There were significantly more individuals with high nAb titre (≥1:160) among those with blood group B, compared with group O (aPR = 1·9 [95%CI = 1·1-3·3], P = 0·029). Fewer individuals had a high nAb titre among those with blood group A, compared with group B (aPR = 0·6 [95%CI = 0·4-1·0], P = 0·053). CONCLUSION: Eligible CCP donors with blood group B may have relatively higher neutralizing antibody titres. Additional studies evaluating ABO blood groups and antibody titres that incorporate COVID-19 severity are needed.

The Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on COVID-19 Patient Mortality: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

To determine the effect of COVID-19 convalescent plasma on mortality, we aggregated patient outcome data from 10 randomized clinical trials (RCT), 20 matched-control studies, two dose-response studies, and 96 case-reports or case series. Studies published between January 1, 2020 to January 16, 2021 were identified through a systematic search of online PubMed and MEDLINE databases. Random effects analyses of RCT and matched-control data demonstrated that COVID-19 patients transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a lower mortality rate compared to patients receiving standard treatments. Additional analyses showed that early transfusion (within 3 days of hospital admission) of higher titer plasma is associated with lower patient mortality. These data provide evidence favoring the efficacy of human convalescent plasma as a therapeutic agent in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The Assessment of Convalescent Plasma Efficacy against COVID-19.

Antibody-based therapy for infectious diseases predates modern antibiotics and, in the absence of other therapeutic options, was deployed early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic through COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) administration. Although most studies have demonstrated signals of efficacy for CCP, definitive assessment has proved difficult under pandemic conditions, with rapid changes in disease incidence and the knowledge base complicating the design and implementation of randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, evidence from a variety of studies demonstrates that CCP is as safe as ordinary plasma and strongly suggests that it can reduce mortality if given early and with sufficient antibody content.

Deployment of convalescent plasma for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has spurred a global health crisis. To date, there are no proven options for prophylaxis for those who have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2, nor therapy for those who develop COVID-19. Immune (i.e., "convalescent") plasma refers to plasma that is collected from individuals following resolution of infection and development of antibodies. Passive antibody administration through transfusion of convalescent plasma may offer the only short-term strategy for conferring immediate immunity to susceptible individuals. There are numerous examples in which convalescent plasma has been used successfully as postexposure prophylaxis and/or treatment of infectious diseases, including other outbreaks of coronaviruses (e.g., SARS-1, Middle East respiratory syndrome [MERS]). Convalescent plasma has also been used in the COVID-19 pandemic; limited data from China suggest clinical benefit, including radiological resolution, reduction in viral loads, and improved survival. Globally, blood centers have robust infrastructure for undertaking collections and constructing inventories of convalescent plasma to meet the growing demand. Nonetheless, there are nuanced challenges, both regulatory and logistical, spanning donor eligibility, donor recruitment, collections, and transfusion itself. Data from rigorously controlled clinical trials of convalescent plasma are also few, underscoring the need to evaluate its use objectively for a range of indications (e.g., prevention vs. treatment) and patient populations (e.g., age, comorbid disease). We provide an overview of convalescent plasma, including evidence of benefit, regulatory considerations, logistical work flow, and proposed clinical trials, as scale-up is brought underway to mobilize this critical resource.

The CELLEX is comparable to the UVAR-XTS for the treatment of acute and chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD).

BACKGROUND: Two extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) instruments, the CELLEX and the UVARXTS are currently being used "off-label" in the US for treatment of graft versus host disease (GVHD). Our study compared the performance of the two instruments in the setting of acute and chronic GVHD. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of patients with steroid refractory or steroid resistant GVHD undergoing ECP at Barnes Jewish Hospital. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the comparative efficacy of the two instruments with respect to steroid dose reduction (≥50% from baseline) and clinical improvement in GVHD. Chi-square/Fisher exact tests were used to compare the incidence of adverse events, while multivariate Cox regression was employed to assess a potential difference in mortality between the two instrument treatment cohorts. RESULTS: After adjusting for potential confounders, there was no significant difference in the odds of steroid dose reduction (OR = 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-3.90, p = 0.50) or clinical improvement (OR 2.0, 95% CI: 0.63-6.41, p = 0.24) between the two instrument treatment cohorts. The frequency of adverse events (CELLEX 45.4%; UVAR XTS 40.5%, p = 0.55) was also comparable between the cohorts. There was no significant difference in mortality of either acute or chronic GVHD patients when treated by the CELLEX as compared to the UVAR-XTS (aHR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.35-1.25, p = 0.20). CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of the two ECP instruments, the CELLEX and the UVAR-XTS, are comparable for the treatment of acute and chronic GVHD.