Acetaminophen and diphenhydramine as premedication for platelet transfusions: a prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Transfusion reactions associated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma in outpatient clinical trials

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important therapeutic option for outpatients at high risk of hospitalization from SARS-CoV-2 infection. We assessed the safety of outpatient CCP transfusions administered during clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed data pertaining to transfusion-related reactions from two randomized controlled trials in the U.S. that evaluated the efficacy of CCP versus control plasma in various ambulatory settings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess whether CCP was associated with transfusion reactions, after adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

The combined study reported 79/1351 (5.9%) adverse events during the transfusion visit, with the majority 62/1351 (4.6%) characterized by mild, allergic-type findings of urticaria, and/or pruritus consistent with minor allergic transfusion reactions; the other reported events were attributed to the patients' underlying disease, COVID-19, or vasovagal in nature. We found no difference in the likelihood of allergic transfusion reactions between those receiving CCP versus control plasma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43-1.31). Risk of urticaria and/or pruritus increased with a pre-existing diagnosis of asthma (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.16-4.67). We did not observe any CCP-attributed antibody disease enhancement in participants with COVID-19 or increased risk of infection. There were no life-threatening severe transfusion reactions and no patients required hospitalization related to transfusion-associated complications.

DISCUSSION

Outpatient plasma administration was safely performed for nearly 1400 participants. CCP is a safe therapeutic option for outpatients at risk of hospitalization from COVID-19.

Platelet transfusion in adults: An update

Many patients worldwide receive platelet components (PCs) through the transfusion of diverse types of blood components. PC transfusions are essential for the treatment of central thrombocytopenia of diverse causes, and such treatment is beneficial in patients at risk of severe bleeding. PC transfusions account for almost 10% of all the blood components supplied by blood services, but they are associated with about 3.25 times as many severe reactions (attributable to transfusion) than red blood cell transfusions after stringent in-process leukoreduction to less than 10⁶ residual cells per blood component. PCs are not homogeneous, due to the considerable differences between donors. Furthermore, the modes of PC collection and preparation, the safety precautions taken to limit either the most common (allergic-type reactions and febrile non-hemolytic reactions) or the most severe (bacterial contamination, pulmonary lesions) adverse reactions, and storage and conservation methods can all result in so-called PC "storage lesions". Some storage lesions affect PC quality, with implications for patient outcome. Good transfusion practices should result in higher levels of platelet recovery and efficacy, and lower complication rates. These practices include a matching of tissue ABH antigens whenever possible, and of platelet HLA (and, to a lesser extent, HPA) antigens in immunization situations. This review provides an overview of all the available information relating to platelet transfusion, from donor and donation to bedside transfusion, and considers the impact of the measures applied to increase transfusion efficacy while improving safety and preventing transfusion inefficacy and refractoriness. It also considers alternatives to platelet component (PC) transfusion.

The abrogated role of premedication in the prevention of transfusion-associated adverse reactions in outpatients receiving leukocyte-reduced blood components

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Although it remains controversial, premedication before transfusion is a common clinical practice to prevent transfusion-associated adverse reactions (TAARs) in Taiwan. Thus, we aimed to investigate whether premedication prevented outpatients from developing TAARs and whether an educational programme could improve the understanding of physicians related to the unnecessary use of premedication, and this could elicit changes in their prescribing activities without affecting the occurrence of TAARs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical data from outpatients receiving transfusion therapy, including predisposing diseases, histories of transfusion and TAARs, premedication and the occurrence of TAARs in the period April 2017 to October 2018, were retrospectively obtained. The evidence-based transfusion programme implemented to educate physicians was started in January 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 5018 blood units were transfused to 803 outpatients, with 2493 transfusion events reported in the study interval. The most frequently transfused component was leukocyte-reduced packed red cells (n = 4338), followed by leukocyte-reduced apheresis platelets (n = 540) and other blood components. The overall premedication rate significantly decreased from 92.4% to 76.7% after the educational programme (p < 0.001). There was no remarkable change in the occurrence of TAARs per patient event between the periods before and after the educational programme (1.11% vs. 1.14%, p = 0.964). Besides, it was shown that the occurrence of TAARs was associated with the history of TAARs and inversely related to multiple transfusions, but not premedication.

CONCLUSION

Decreased premedication was not associated with increased incidence of TAARs in outpatients; these findings provide important evidence to support the need to revise clinical practices in the era of leukocyte-reduced blood products.

Preventing adverse reactions in pediatric transfusions using washed platelet concentrate

Blood transfusion is an important form of supportive care in children; however, transfusion-associated adverse reactions (TARs) are a problem. As with adults, allergic transfusion reactions (ATRs) and febrile non-hemolytic transfusion reactions (FNHTRs) are major TARs, and the frequency of ATRs caused by platelet concentrate (PC) tends to be particularly high. The plasma component of the blood product is thought to be a major factor in the onset of TARs such as ATR and FNHTR. By contrast, in children, age, underlying disease, and number of blood transfusions may be relevant patient-related factors. Although acetaminophen or diphenhydramine may be used prophylactically to prevent TARs, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. Volume-reduced PC is used to prevent TARs; however, it may be difficult to maintain the quality of platelets. Plasma-replaced PC stored with platelet additive solution raises the concern that TARs cannot be completely prevented by residual plasma. Washed PC removes most of the plasma, so it can effectively prevent ATR and FNHTR. The recent development of platelet additive solution [M-sol, bicarbonate Ringer's solution supplemented with acid-citrate-dextrose formula A (BRS-A)] in Japan has enabled the maintenance of the quality of platelets for long periods. The clinical use of washed PC in Japan has therefore progressed. Washed PC with M-sol or BRS-A for pediatric patients can effectively prevent TARs without diminishing the transfusion effect. The supply of washed PC has begun from the Japanese Red Cross Society, and it has become possible to use washed PC at all medical institutions in Japan.

Association of Veterinary Hematology and Transfusion Medicine (AVHTM) Transfusion Reaction Small Animal Consensus Statement (TRACS) Part 2: Prevention and monitoring

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review available evidence to develop guidelines for the prevention of transfusion reactions and monitoring of transfusion administration in dogs and cats.

DESIGN

Evidence evaluation of the literature (identified through Medline searches through Pubmed and Google Scholar searches) was carried out for identified transfusion reaction types in dogs and cats. Evidence was evaluated using PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) questions generated for each reaction type. Evidence was categorized by level of evidence (LOE) and quality (Good, Fair, or Poor). Guidelines for prevention and monitoring were generated based on the synthesis of the evidence. Consensus on the final recommendations and a proposed transfusion administration monitoring form was achieved through Delphi-style surveys. Draft recommendations and the monitoring form were made available through veterinary specialty listservs and comments were incorporated.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine guidelines and a transfusion administration monitoring form were formulated from the evidence review with a high degree of consensus CONCLUSIONS: This systematic evidence evaluation process yielded recommended prevention and monitoring guidelines and a proposed transfusion administration form. However, significant knowledge gaps were identified, demonstrating the need for additional research in veterinary transfusion medicine.

Transfusion practice in Australia: an internet-based survey

OBJECTIVE

To describe small animal transfusion practices in Australia, including access to blood products and frequency of pre-transfusion compatibility testing and medication administration.

METHODS

An online survey was disseminated to target Australian veterinarians treating dogs and cats. Information collected included demographics, sources of blood products, blood storage, recipient compatibility testing and administration of medications pre-transfusion. Associations between the use of compatibility tests and premedications were assessed using the χ² test. Significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 199 Australian veterinarians were included; however, there was some attrition of respondents over the course of the survey. The majority of respondents were in general practice (n = 133/199). Access to fresh whole blood was commonly reported for dogs (n = 179/199) and cats (n = 131/198), whereas blood components were less commonly available (canine red blood cells [RBC], n = 52/199 and plasma, n = 157/199; feline RBC, n = 9/198 and plasma, n = 21/198). Most blood was sourced from the pets of owners affiliated with the veterinary clinic (n = 179/196). The respondents who did not blood type or crossmatch dogs were significantly more likely to use premedication than those who did these tests (both comparisons: P < 0.001). Likewise, the respondents who did not blood-type cats were significantly more likely to use premedication (P = 0.003); however, there was no association between crossmatching and using premedication in cats (P = 0.183).

CONCLUSION

This is the first survey to describe transfusion practices across a variety of practice types throughout Australia. Future work is needed to determine how representative these results are of current transfusion practices across Australia, and if so, what can be done to optimise them.

Premedication for the prevention of nonhemolytic transfusion reactions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of premedication for the prevention of nonhemolytic transfusion reactions remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effect of premedication on the rate of nonhemolytic transfusion reactions after allogeneic blood transfusion.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched the literature using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception until October 31, 2018. We included all randomized controlled trials comparing premedication to placebo or no treatment in patients receiving any labile blood product. Outcome measures were reported as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Data were combined for similar outcomes where appropriate using a random-effects model. Analyses were done at both the patient and transfusion level.

RESULTS

Three randomized trials using acetaminophen and antihistamine as premedication met the inclusion criteria. A total of 517 patients received 4444 red blood cell or platelet transfusions. Pooled patient-level estimates with premedication for all nonhemolytic, febrile nonhemolytic, and minor allergic reactions were RR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35); RR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.26-1.1); and RR, 1.37 (95% CI 0.81-2.31), respectively. Transfusion-level analyses also showed no benefit with premedication. Of 517 patients randomized, only 27 (5.2%) had a history of transfusion reactions.

CONCLUSION

Routine premedication with acetaminophen and antihistamines did not prevent nonhemolytic transfusion reactions; however, the estimate of effect was greatest for febrile reactions. The impact of premedication in patients with a prior history of transfusion reactions remains unknown and requires further evaluation in future clinical trials.

Transfusion Reactions: A Case Study of an Ocular Adverse Event During Autologous Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Transfusion of blood products is an integral part of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Because of the risk for myelotoxicity during conditioning regimens, adequate transfusion support is needed. Typical signs and symptoms of transfusion reactions include fever, chills, hives, and itching. Uncommon symptoms, such as conjunctival erythema, periorbital itching, erythema, and edema, can also occur.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article is to describe atypical transfusion-related reactions in a patient undergoing stem cell transplantation.

METHODS

This article presents a case study of a patient with cancer undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation who experienced an adverse ocular reaction following platelet transfusion.

FINDINGS

Ensuring that oncology nurses are proactive in identifying and managing symptoms that can result from atypical transfusion reactions can reduce morbidity and mortality and improve overall patient care outcomes.

A retrospective cost analysis of the frequency and cost of transfusion premedications

BACKGROUND

Acetaminophen and diphenhydramine are routinely administered to prevent febrile non-hemolytic and allergic blood transfusion reactions despite multiple randomized controlled trials demonstrating that this practice lacks efficacy. As a result, patients are exposed to the adverse effects of these medications and their financial burdens with no expected benefit. The aim of this study was to quantify the frequency and cost of transfusion premedications in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients with AML admitted to Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) for induction chemotherapy between January 2008 and December 2016. Data were collected on the number of platelet and packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusions each patient received during the initial inpatient encounter for AML, as well as on the administration of premedications prior to each transfusion.

RESULTS

During the 9-year study period, 948 AML patients received a total of 19,820 transfusions. Of these, 30% were preceded by oral diphenhydramine, 8% by intravenous diphenhydramine, and 39% by oral acetaminophen. The percentage of patients that received a transfusion preceded by a premedication increased over the study period (p = 0.03), as did the percentage of transfusions preceded by a premedication (p = 0.02). The total unadjusted cost of pre-transfusion medications to the institution during the study period was $50,309.77, or $52.67 per patient with AML. The cost of premedications per patient did not increase over the study period (p = .45).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine transfusion premedication administration is common in AML patients and not well-supported by available evidence.

Chronic Renal Failure as a Possible Risk Factor for Allergic Reaction in Therapeutic Plasma Exchange Using Fresh Frozen Plasma

The incidence of allergic reactions in patients with chronic renal failure during plasma exchange using fresh frozen plasma is not well known. We retrospectively reviewed 62 patients who underwent plasma exchange between January 2013 and May 2018. The most common indication for plasma exchange was desensitization/preconditioning for kidney transplant (61.3%, 38/62). The incidence of allergic reactions was significantly higher in patients with chronic renal failure than patients without (57.1% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.029). Also, the incidence of allergic reactions tended to be higher in peritoneal dialysis patients (75%, 3/4) than in hemodialysis (58.8%, 10/17) and preemptive kidney transplant (58%, 11/19). These results suggested the relationship of chronic renal failure and the incidence of allergic reactions in patients undergoing therapeutic plasma exchange using fresh frozen plasma.

Noninfectious transfusion-associated adverse events and their mitigation strategies

Blood transfusions are life-saving therapies; however, they can result in adverse events that can be infectious or, more commonly, noninfectious. The most common noninfectious reactions include febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions, allergic transfusion reactions, transfusion-associated circulatory overload, transfusion-related acute lung injury, and acute and delayed hemolytic transfusion reactions. These reactions can be asymptomatic, mild, or potentially fatal. There are several new methodologies to diagnose, treat, and prevent these reactions. Hemovigilance systems for monitoring transfusion events have been developed and demonstrated decreases in some adverse events, such as hemolytic transfusion reactions. Now vein-to-vein databases are being created to study the interactions of the donor, product, and patient factors in the role of adverse outcomes. This article reviews the definition, pathophysiology, management, and mitigation strategies, including the role of the donor, product, and patient, of the most common noninfectious transfusion-associated adverse events. Prevention strategies, such as leukoreduction, plasma reduction, additive solutions, and patient blood management programs, are actively being used to enhance transfusion safety. Understanding the incidence, pathophysiology, and current management strategies will help to create innovative products and continually hone in on best transfusion practices that suit individualized patient needs.

Efficacy of Oral Acetaminophen and Intravenous Chlorpheniramine Maleate versus Placebo to Prevent Red Cell Transfusion Reactions in Children and Adolescent with Thalassemia: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial

Background

Thalassemia is a common congenital hemolytic disorder. In severe cases, regular blood transfusion is essentially required. The role of premedications to prevent transfusion reactions is varied among institutions with no standard guideline.

Objective

To prospectively compare the risk of transfusion reactions in thalassemia patients premedicated with acetaminophen and chlorpheniramine maleate (CPM) versus placebo prior to blood transfusion.

Material and Method

A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled transfusion reaction study of 147 eligible patients was analyzed. All administered red blood cell (RBC) products were leukoreduced blood products. Patients were monitored and followed for the development of transfusion reactions for 24 hours after RBC transfusion.

Results

A total of 73 patients randomized to receive active drugs consisting of acetaminophen and CPM were compared to 74 patients receiving placebo. The overall incidences of febrile reaction and urticarial rash were 6.9% and 22% in the patients randomized to receive active drugs comparing with 9.5% and 35.2% in the patients receiving placebo with no significant differences between two groups. However, delayed development of urticarial rash at 4-24 hours after RBC transfusion was significantly higher in female and patients receiving placebo.

Conclusion

Administration of premedications in thalassemia patients receiving RBC transfusion without a history of transfusion reactions does not decrease the overall risk of transfusion reactions. However, the use of CPM might be beneficial to prevent delayed urticarial rash in those patients especially in females (Thai Clinical Trial Registry (TCTR) study ID: 20140526001).

Recommendations on Selection and Processing of RBC Components for Pediatric Patients From the Pediatric Critical Care Transfusion and Anemia Expertise Initiative

OBJECTIVES

To present the recommendations and supporting literature for selection and processing of RBC products in critically ill children developed by the Pediatric Critical Care Transfusion and Anemia Expertise Initiative.

DESIGN

Consensus conference series of international, multidisciplinary experts in RBC transfusion management of critically ill children METHODS:: The panel of 38 experts developed evidence-based, and when evidence was lacking, expert-based clinical recommendations as well as research priorities for RBC transfusions in critically ill children. The RBC processing subgroup included five experts. Electronic searches were conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from 1980 to May 2017. Agreement was obtained using the Research and Development/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Results were summarized using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method.

RESULTS

Five recommendations reached agreement (> 80%). Irradiated cellular products are recommended for children at risk of transfusion-associated graft versus host disease due to severe congenital or acquired causes of immune deficiency or when the blood donor is a blood relative. Washed cellular blood components and avoidance of other plasma-containing products are recommended for critically ill children with history of severe allergic reactions or anaphylaxis to blood transfusions, although patient factors appear to be important in the pathogenesis of reactions. For children with history of severe allergic transfusion reactions, evaluation for allergic stigmata prior to transfusion is recommended. In children with severe immunoglobulin A deficiency with evidence of antiimmunoglobulin A antibodies and/or a history of a severe transfusion reaction, immunoglobulin A-deficient blood components obtained either from an immunoglobulin A-deficient donor and/or washed cellular components is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

The Transfusion and Anemia Expertise Initiative consensus conference developed recommendations for selection and processing of RBC units for critically ill children. Recommendations in this area are largely based on pediatric and adult case report data.

Plasma Transfusion: History, Current Realities, and Novel Improvements

Traumatic hemorrhage is the leading cause of preventable death after trauma. Early transfusion of plasma and balanced transfusion have been shown to optimize survival, mitigate the acute coagulopathy of trauma, and restore the endothelial glycocalyx. There are a myriad of plasma formulations available worldwide, including fresh frozen plasma, thawed plasma, liquid plasma, plasma frozen within 24 h, and lyophilized plasma (LP). Significant equipoise exists in the literature regarding the optimal plasma formulation. LP is a freeze-dried formulation that was originally developed in the 1930s and used by the American and British military in World War II. It was subsequently discontinued due to risk of disease transmission from pooled donors. Recently, there has been a significant amount of research focusing on optimizing reconstitution of LP. Findings show that sterile water buffered with ascorbic acid results in decreased blood loss with suppression of systemic inflammation. We are now beginning to realize the creation of a plasma-derived formulation that rapidly produces the associated benefits without logistical or safety constraints. This review will highlight the history of plasma, detail the various types of plasma formulations currently available, their pathophysiological effects, impacts of storage on coagulation factors in vitro and in vivo, novel concepts, and future directions.

Comparison of different platelet count thresholds to guide administration of prophylactic platelet transfusion for preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic due to bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: prophylactic versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. This review has now been split into four smaller reviews looking at these questions individually; this review compares prophylactic platelet transfusion thresholds.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether different platelet transfusion thresholds for administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding) affect the efficacy and safety of prophylactic platelet transfusions in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, 23 July 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in people with haematological disorders (receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT) that compared different thresholds for administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions (low trigger (5 x 10(9)/L); standard trigger (10 x 10(9)/L); higher trigger (20 x 10(9)/L, 30 x 10(9)/L, 50 x 10(9)/L); or alternative platelet trigger (for example platelet mass)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials met our predefined inclusion criteria and were included for analysis in the review (499 participants). All three trials compared a standard trigger (10 x 10(9)/L) versus a higher trigger (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L). None of the trials compared a low trigger versus a standard trigger or an alternative platelet trigger. The trials were conducted between 1991 and 2001 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations.The original review contained four trials (658 participants); in the previous update of this review we excluded one trial (159 participants) because fewer than 80% of participants had a haematological disorder. We identified no new trials in this update of the review.Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the included studies had some threats to validity.Three studies reported the number of participants with at least one clinically significant bleeding episode within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with a clinically significant bleeding episode between the standard and higher trigger groups (three studies; 499 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.90; low-quality evidence).One study reported the number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event (adjusted for repeated measures). There was no evidence of a difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between the standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 255 participants; relative proportion of days with World Health Organization Grade 2 or worse bleeding (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.48, P = 0.162; authors' own results; low-quality evidence).Two studies reported the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding. There was no evidence of any difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a standard trigger level and a higher trigger level (two studies; 421 participants; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.88; low-quality evidence).Only one study reported the time to first bleeding episode. There was no evidence of any difference in the time to the first bleeding episode between a standard trigger level and a higher trigger level (one study; 255 participants; hazard ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.91; low-quality evidence).Only one study reported on all-cause mortality within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no evidence of any difference in all-cause mortality between standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 255 participants; RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.81; low-quality evidence).Three studies reported on the number of platelet transfusions per participant. Two studies reported on the mean number of platelet transfusions per participant. There was a significant reduction in the number of platelet transfusions per participant in the standard trigger group (two studies, mean difference -2.09, 95% CI -3.20 to -0.99; low-quality evidence).One study reported on the number of transfusion reactions. There was no evidence to demonstrate any difference in transfusion reactions between the standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 79 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.09).None of the studies reported on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with haematological disorders who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT, we found low-quality evidence that a standard trigger level (10 x 10(9)/L) is associated with no increase in the risk of bleeding when compared to a higher trigger level (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L). There was low-quality evidence that a standard trigger level is associated with a decreased number of transfusion episodes when compared to a higher trigger level (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L).Findings from this review were based on three studies and 499 participants. Without further evidence, it is reasonable to continue with the current practice of administering prophylactic platelet transfusions using the standard trigger level (10 x 10(9)/L) in the absence of other risk factors for bleeding.

Different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusion for preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic due to bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: prophylactic versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. This review has now been split into four smaller reviews; this review compares different platelet transfusion doses.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusions (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding) affect their efficacy and safety in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy with or without haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in people with malignant haematological disorders or undergoing HSCT that compared different platelet component doses (low dose 1.1 x 10(11)/m(2) ± 25%, standard dose 2.2 x 10(11)/m(2) ± 25%, high dose 4.4 x 10(11)/m(2) ± 25%).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (1814 participants) in this review; six were conducted during one course of treatment (chemotherapy or HSCT).Overall the methodological quality of studies was low to moderate across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the included studies had some threats to validity.Five studies reported the number of participants with at least one clinically significant bleeding episode within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no difference in the number of participants with a clinically significant bleeding episode between the low-dose and standard-dose groups (four studies; 1170 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.13; moderate-quality evidence); low-dose and high-dose groups (one study; 849 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11; moderate-quality evidence); or high-dose and standard-dose groups (two studies; 951 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11; moderate-quality evidence).Three studies reported the number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event per participant. There was no difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between the low-dose and standard-dose groups (two studies; 230 participants; mean difference -0.17, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.17; low quality evidence). One study (855 participants) showed no difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between high-dose and standard-dose groups, or between low-dose and high-dose groups (849 participants).Three studies reported the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding. There was no difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a low-dose and a standard-dose platelet transfusion policy (three studies; 1059 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.92; low-quality evidence); low-dose and high-dose groups (one study; 849 participants; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.77; low-quality evidence); or high-dose and standard-dose groups (one study; 855 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.68; low-quality evidence).Two studies reported the time to first bleeding episodes; we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Both studies (959 participants) individually found that the time to first bleeding episode was either the same, or longer, in the low-dose group compared to the standard-dose group. One study (855 participants) found that the time to the first bleeding episode was the same in the high-dose group compared to the standard-dose group.Three studies reported all-cause mortality within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no difference in all-cause mortality between treatment arms (low-dose versus standard-dose: three studies; 1070 participants; RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.70 to 5.93; low-quality evidence; low-dose versus high-dose: one study; 849 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.54; low-quality evidence; and high-dose versus standard-dose: one study; 855 participants; RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.81; low-quality evidence).Six studies reported the number of platelet transfusions; we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Two studies (959 participants) out of three (1070 participants) found that a low-dose transfusion strategy led to more transfusion episodes than a standard-dose. One study (849 participants) found that a low-dose transfusion strategy led to more transfusion episodes than a high-dose strategy. One study (855 participants) out of three (1007 participants) found no difference in the number of platelet transfusions between the high-dose and standard-dose groups.One study reported on transfusion reactions. This study's authors suggested that a high-dose platelet transfusion strategy may lead to a higher rate of transfusion-related adverse events.None of the studies reported quality-of-life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In haematology patients who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT, we found no evidence to suggest that a low-dose platelet transfusion policy is associated with an increased bleeding risk compared to a standard-dose or high-dose policy, or that a high-dose platelet transfusion policy is associated with a decreased risk of bleeding when compared to a standard-dose policy.A low-dose platelet transfusion strategy leads to an increased number of transfusion episodes compared to a standard-dose strategy. A high-dose platelet transfusion strategy does not decrease the number of transfusion episodes per participant compared to a standard-dose regimen, and it may increase the number of transfusion-related adverse events.Findings from this review would suggest a change from current practice, with low-dose platelet transfusions used for people receiving in-patient treatment for their haematological disorder and high-dose platelet transfusion strategies not being used routinely.

A therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy for preventing bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients with bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004 and updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. We have now split this review into four smaller reviews looking at these questions individually; this review is the first part of the original review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given when patient bleeds) is as effective and safe as a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding, usually when the platelet count falls below a given trigger level) in patients with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent or treat bleeding in patients with malignant haematological disorders receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven RCTs that compared therapeutic platelet transfusions to prophylactic platelet transfusions in haematology patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT. One trial is still ongoing, leaving six trials eligible with a total of 1195 participants. These trials were conducted between 1978 and 2013 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations. We were able to critically appraise five of these studies, which contained separate data for each arm, and were unable to perform quantitative analysis on one study that did not report the numbers of participants in each treatment arm.Overall the quality of evidence per outcome was low to moderate according to the GRADE approach. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the studies identified had some threats to validity. We deemed only one study to be at low risk of bias in all domains other than blinding.Two RCTs (801 participants) reported at least one bleeding episode within 30 days of the start of the study. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to considerable statistical heterogeneity between studies. The statistical heterogeneity seen may relate to the different methods used in studies for the assessment and grading of bleeding. The underlying patient diagnostic and treatment categories also appeared to have some effect on bleeding risk. Individually these studies showed a similar effect, that a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion strategy was associated with an increased risk of clinically significant bleeding compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy. Number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event per participant was higher in the therapeutic-only group than in the prophylactic group (one RCT; 600 participants; mean difference 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.90; moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a therapeutic-only transfusion policy and a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 801 participants; risk ratio (RR) 4.91, 95% CI 0.86 to 28.12; low-quality evidence). Two RCTs (801 participants) reported time to first bleeding episode. As there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Both studies individually found that time to first bleeding episode was shorter in the therapeutic-only group compared with the prophylactic platelet transfusion group.There was insufficient evidence to determine any difference in all-cause mortality within 30 days of the start of the study using a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 629 participants). Mortality was a rare event, and therefore larger studies would be needed to establish the effect of these alternative strategies. There was a clear reduction in the number of platelet transfusions per participant in the therapeutic-only arm (two RCTs, 991 participants; standardised mean reduction of 0.50 platelet transfusions per participant, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.37; moderate-quality evidence). None of the studies reported quality of life. There was no evidence of any difference in the frequency of adverse events, such as transfusion reactions, between a therapeutic-only and prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 991 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.68), although the confidence intervals were wide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to moderate-grade evidence that a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy is associated with increased risk of bleeding when compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy in haematology patients who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT. There is insufficient evidence to determine any difference in mortality rates and no evidence of any difference in adverse events between a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy and a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy. A therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy is associated with a clear reduction in the number of platelet components administered.

Effect of premedication and other factors on the occurrence of acute transfusion reactions in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of premedication on transfusion reactions (TRs) within 24 hours after blood product transfusions in dogs.

DESIGN

Retrospective study between 2008 and 2011.

SETTING

Private veterinary referral hospital.

ANIMALS

Nine hundred and thirty-five transfusion events in 558 dogs.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Medical records of dogs receiving blood product transfusions were reviewed. Information collected included signalment, weight, transfusion product type, reason for transfusion, first or subsequent transfusion, whether an acute reaction occurred, type of reaction, whether the reaction was treated, premedication prior to the transfusion and the premedication used, other medications the animal was given, whether the animal had an immune-mediated process, and whether the transfusion was administered in the perioperative period. A total of 144 (15%) acute TRs were documented in 136 dogs. The most common TRs were fever alone (77/144 [53%]) and vomiting alone (26/144 [18%]). Six dogs died due to the TR (4%). TR was not associated with age (P = 0.257), sex (P = 0.754), weight (P = 0.829), or premedication (P = 0.312). The type of blood product transfused (P < 0.001) was significantly associated with TRs, with packed RBCs most likely associated with a TR, and plasma least likely. Immune disease (P = 0.015) was significantly associated with occurrence of a TR. Significantly fewer reactions were documented following transfusions given in the perioperative period (P = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

While most TRs were mild, there were some serious reactions observed including hemolysis, dyspnea, and 6 deaths. Immune-mediated disease was associated with development of a TR, while transfusion during the perioperative period was associated with lower likelihood of reaction. Packed RBC transfusions were associated with development of acute TRs. Overall occurrence of TR was not significantly altered with premedication; however, when evaluated alone, antihistamines decreased the incidence of acute allergic reactions.

Impact of computerized physician order entry alerts on prescribing in older patients

BACKGROUND

A computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system provides opportunity for real-time alerts to prescribers. Winthrop University Hospital began using CPOE in 2009.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to improve prescribing among older hospitalized patients by adding alerts to the CPOE system for potentially inappropriate medications.

METHODS

In January 2011, informational alerts were integrated into the CPOE system for selected high-risk medications: diphenhydramine, metoclopramide, and all antipsychotics. We evaluated the effect of these alerts on prescribing frequency by comparing the number of prescriptions during the second quarters of 2010 ("pre-alert") with the second quarters of 2011 through 2013 ("post-alert"). Prescribing patterns were evaluated through a pharmacy database of medication orders. Frequency of prescribing was adjusted for total discharges. A comparison was made to ages 18-64 years, and comparing "as needed" vs standing orders.

RESULTS

In the 65 years of age and older group, there were significant reductions in prescription rates pre-alert vs post-alert for diphenhydramine (p < 0.001) and metoclopramide (p < 0.001). There was no decrease in prescription rates for antipsychotics in older patients (p = 0.80). In the younger comparison group, no decreases in prescription rates for those drugs were observed. Our analysis is based on numbers of written prescriptions and not actual doses administered; therefore, no conclusions concerning the effect of these alerts on communication or documentation of risk/benefits of these medications can be ascertained.

CONCLUSION

The data suggest that prescribing rates for drugs with the least efficacy and potential for harm and with alternative agents (i.e., diphenhydramine and metoclopramide) can be modified by CPOE alerts for older patients.

Relative IgA-deficient recipients have an increased risk of severe allergic transfusion reactions

BACKGROUND

Absolute IgA deficiency is the most common immunodeficiency in the Western world. These patients are at risk of severe allergic reactions when receiving a transfusion with a plasma-containing blood product. However, it is unclear whether patients with relative IgA deficiency, that is levels below detection on routine assays, are also at risk of severe reactions. This retrospective study evaluated the number of severe allergic transfusion reactions in relative IgA-deficient patients who were transfused with unwashed blood products.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients who had an IgA measurement performed for any reason over a 10-year period were compared with a list of transfusion recipients over the same period. Those who had both an IgA measurement and a transfusion were then compared with the transfusion reaction database to determine whether an allergic reaction had been reported, and if so, the severity of the reaction. Patients with IgA concentrations of <7 mg/dL were defined as relative IgA deficient.

RESULTS

Of the 22 362 IgA measurements performed on 19 737 patients over 10 years, a total of 168 relative IgA-deficient patients were identified; 39 of these patients were also transfusion recipients and 4 of 39 (10%) experienced a severe allergic transfusion reaction (SALTR). Eight SALTRs were reported amongst 1545 (0·52%) IgA replete transfusion recipients.

CONCLUSION

The significantly increased risk of SALTRs in relative IgA-deficient patients warrants consideration of premedications and/or washing of plasma-containing blood products.

Transfusion and component characteristics are not associated with allergic transfusion reactions to apheresis platelets

BACKGROUND

Transfusion-related characteristics have been hypothesized to cause allergic transfusion reactions (ATRs) but they have not been thoroughly studied. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the associations of infusion rate, infusion volume, ABO mismatching, component age, and pretransfusion medication with the incidence and severity of ATRs. A secondary objective is to compare the risk of these attributes relative to the previously reported risk factor for aeroallergen sensitization in transfusion recipients, as measured by an aeroallergen-specific immunoglobulin (Ig)E antibody screen.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Clinical and transfusion-related data were collected on subjects with reported ATRs and uneventful (control) apheresis platelet (PLT) transfusions over a combined 21-month period at two academic medical centers. Control transfusions were selected as the next uneventful transfusion after an ATR was reported. Logistic regression, Mann-Whitney, and t tests were used to assess associations with ATRs. Previously reported aeroallergen-specific IgE screening data were incorporated into a multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 143 ATRs and 61 control transfusions were evaluated among 168 subjects, ages 2 to 86 years. Infusion rate, infusion volume, ABO mismatching, component age, and pretransfusion medication showed no significant association with ATRs (p > 0.05). Neither infusion rate nor infusion volume increased the risk of anaphylaxis versus mucocutaneous-only ATRs. Aeroallergen sensitization has previously been associated with ATRs. After transfusion-related covariates were controlled for, aeroallergen sensitization remained significantly associated with ATRs (odds ratio, 2.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-5.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Transfusion- and component-specific attributes are not associated with ATRs. An allergic predisposition in transfusion recipients is associated most strongly with ATR risk.

Blood product transfusions and reactions

Blood product transfusions are an essential component of the practice of emergency medicine. From acute traumatic hemorrhage to chronic blood loss necessitating transfusion for symptomatic anemia, familiarity with individual blood products and their indications for transfusion is an essential tool for every emergency physician (EP). Although the focus of this article is primarily on the transfusion of red blood cells, many of the concepts are applicable to the transfusion of all blood products. EPs must be fully familiar with both the individual blood components and the potential reactions and complications of these transfusions.

Effects of Leukoreduction and Premedication With Acetaminophen and Diphenhydramine in Minimizing Febrile Nonhemolytic Transfusion Reactions and Allergic Transfusion Reactions During and After Blood Product Administration

Transfusion-related reactions cause unwanted interruptions in blood-product administration and potential complications for patients. The most common reactions are febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions (FNHTRs) and allergic transfusion reactions (ATRs). The presence of leukocytes in blood products has been associated with these reactions, and efficacy of leukoreduction in minimizing FNHTRs and ATRs has recently been investigated. In addition, premedication with acetaminophen and diphenhydramine is the most widely used practice in minimizing FNHTRs and ATRs, yet the benefit of this is not supported by research. The aim of this systematic literature review was to evaluate the potential benefits of both of these interventions in minimizing FNHTRs and ATRs and provide recommendations for practice. We found moderate quality evidence with strong recommendations for the practice of leukoreduction in minimizing FNHTRs but not ATRs. We did not find evidence to support the use of premedications in minimizing transfusion-related reactions, and we question the need for this practice in settings where leukoreduction is used.

The impact of platelet additive solution apheresis platelets on allergic transfusion reactions and corrected count increment (CME)

BACKGROUND

Allergic transfusion reaction (ATR) incidence ranges from 1% to 3% of all transfusions. We evaluated the impact of InterSol platelet additive solution (PAS) apheresis platelets (APs) on the incidence of ATRs and the posttransfusion platelet (PLT) increment.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated all ATRs among patients at a university hospital that maintained a mixed inventory of PAS APs and non-PAS APs (standard plasma-suspended PLTs). Corrected count increments (CCIs) were calculated for AP transfusions of individuals who received both a PAS and a non-PAS AP transfusion within a 7-day period. Hypothesis testing was performed with chi-square test for dichotomous variables and t tests for continuous variables.

RESULTS

The incidence of ATRs among the non-PAS APs was 1.85% (72 ATRs/3884 transfusions) and 1.01% (12 ATRs/1194 transfusions) for PAS APs (risk ratio [RR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.30-0.99; p=0.04). However, there was no difference in the incidence of febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions between non-PAS APs (incidence, 0.70%; 27/3884) compared to PAS APs (incidence, 0.59%; 7/1194; p=0.69). Among 223 individuals with paired non-PAS and PAS AP transfusions, the mean CCI at 1 to 4 hours after transfusion was 4932 (95% CI, 4452-5412) for non-PAS APs and was lower for PAS APs (CCI, 3766; 95% CI, 3375-4158; p ≤ 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in mean CCI at 12 to 24 hours between non-PAS (CCI, 2135; 95% CI, 1696-2573) and PAS APs (CCI, 1745; 95% CI, 1272-2217; p=0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

PAS APs substantially reduce the number of ATRs. CCIs for PAS APs were lower immediately after transfusion, but not significantly different at 12 to 24 hours.

Guideline on the investigation and management of acute transfusion reactions. Prepared by the BCSH Blood Transfusion Task Force

Although acute non-haemolytic febrile or allergic reactions (ATRs) are a common complication of transfusion and often result in little or no morbidity, prompt recognition and management are essential. The serious hazards of transfusion haemovigilance organisation (SHOT) receives 30-40 reports of anaphylactic reactions each year. Other serious complications of transfusion, such as acute haemolysis, bacterial contamination, transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) or transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO) may present with similar clinical features to ATR. This guideline describes the approach to a patient developing adverse symptoms and signs related to transfusion, including initial recognition, establishing a likely cause, treatment, investigations, planning future transfusion and reporting within the hospital and to haemovigilance organisations. Key recommendations are that adrenaline should be used as first line treatment of anaphylaxis, and that transfusions should only be carried out where patients can be directly observed and where staff are trained in manging complications of transfusion, particularly anaphylaxis. Management of ATRs is not dependent on classification but should be guided by symptoms and signs. Patients who have experienced an anaphylactic reaction should be discussed with an allergist or immunologist, in keeping with UK resuscitation council guidelines.

Scratching the surface of allergic transfusion reactions

Allergic transfusion reactions (ATRs) are a spectrum of hypersensitivity reactions that are the most common adverse reaction to platelets and plasma, occurring in up to 2% of transfusions. Despite the ubiquity of these reactions, little is known about their mechanism. In a small subset of severe reactions, specific antibody has been implicated as causal, although this mechanism does not explain all ATRs. Evidence suggests that donor, product, and recipient factors are involved, and it is possible that many ATRs are multifactorial. Further understanding of the mechanisms of ATRs is necessary so that rationally designed and cost-effective prevention measures can be developed.

Adverse effects of plasma transfusion

Plasma utilization has increased over the past two decades, and there is a growing concern that many plasma transfusions are inappropriate. Plasma transfusion is not without risk, and certain complications are more likely with plasma than other blood components. Clinical and laboratory investigations of the patients suffering reactions after infusion of fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) define the etiology and pathogenesis of the panoply of adverse effects. We review here the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of the risks associated with plasma transfusion. Risks commonly associated with FFP include: 1) transfusion-related acute lung injury, 2) transfusion-associated circulatory overload, and 3) allergic and/or anaphylactic reactions. Other less common risks include 1) transmission of infections, 2) febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions, 3) red blood cell alloimmunization, and 4) hemolytic transfusion reactions. The effects of pathogen inactivation or reduction methods on these risks are also discussed. Fortunately, a majority of the adverse effects are not lethal and are adequately treated in clinical practice.

Prophylactic platelet transfusion for prevention of bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients with bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the most effective use of platelet transfusion for the prevention of bleeding in patients with haematological disorders undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 4, 2011), MEDLINE (1950 to Nov 2011), EMBASE (1980 to Nov 2011) and CINAHL (1982 to Nov 2011), using adaptations of the Cochrane RCT search filter, the UKBTS/SRI Transfusion Evidence Library, and ongoing trial databases to 10 November 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in patients with haematological disorders. Four different types of prophylactic platelet transfusion trial were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In the original review one author initially screened all electronically derived citations and abstracts of papers, identified by the review search strategy, for relevancy. Two authors performed this task in the updated review. Two authors independently assessed the full text of all potentially relevant trials for eligibility. Two authors completed data extraction independently. We requested missing data from the original investigators as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 18 trials that were eligible for inclusion, five of these were still ongoing.Thirteen completed published trials (2331 participants) were included for analysis in the review. The original review contained nine trials (718 participants). This updated review includes six new trials (1818 participants).Two trials (205 participants) in the original review are now excluded because fewer than 80% of participants had a haematological disorder.The four different types of prophylactic platelet transfusion trial, that were the focus of this review, were included within these thirteen trials.Three trials compared prophylactic platelet transfusions versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusions. There was no statistical difference between the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding in the therapeutic and prophylactic arms but the confidence interval was wide (RR 1.66; 95% CI 0.9 to 3.04).The time taken for a clinically significant bleed to occur was longer in the prophylactic platelet transfusion arm. There was a clear reduction in platelet transfusion usage in the therapeutic arm. There was no statistical difference between the number of participants in the therapeutic and prophylactic arms with platelet refractoriness, the only adverse event reported.Three trials compared different platelet count thresholds to trigger administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions. No statistical difference was seen in the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding (RR 1.35; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.9), however, this type of bleeding occurred on fewer days in the group of patients transfused at a higher platelet count threshold (RR 1.72; 95% CI 1.33 to 2.22).The lack of a difference seen for the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding may be due to the studies, in combination, having insufficient power to demonstrate a difference, or due to masking of the effect by a higher number of protocol violations in the groups of patients with a lower platelet count threshold. Using a lower platelet count threshold led to a significant reduction in the number of platelet transfusions used. There were no statistical differences in the number of adverse events reported between the two groups.Six trials compared different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusions. There was no evidence to suggest that using a lower platelet transfusion dose increased: the number of participants with clinically significant (WHO grade 2 or above) (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11), or life-threatening (WHO grade 4) bleeding (RR 1.87; 95% CI 0.86 to 4.08). A higher platelet transfusion dose led to a reduction in the number of platelet transfusion episodes, but an increase in total platelet utilisation. Only one adverse event, wheezing after transfusion, had a significantly higher incidence when standard and high dose transfusions were compared but this difference was not seen when low dose and high dose transfusions were compared. It is therefore likely to be a type I error (false positive).One small trial compared prophylactic platelet transfusions versus platelet-poor plasma. The risk of a significant bleed was decreased in the prophylactic platelet transfusion arm (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95) and this was statistically significant.All studies had threats to validity; the majority of these were due to methodology of the studies not being described in adequate detail.Although it was not the main focus of the review, it was interesting to note that in one of the pre-specified sub-group analyses (treatment type) two studies showed that patients receiving an autologous transplant have a lower risk of bleeding than patients receiving intensive chemotherapy or an allogeneic transplant (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.82).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These conclusions refer to the four different types of platelet transfusion trial separately. Firstly, there is no evidence that a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy prevents bleeding. Two large trials comparing a therapeutic versus prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy, that have not yet been published, should provide important new data on this comparison. Secondly, there is no evidence, at the moment, to suggest a change from the current practice of using a platelet count of 10 x 10(9)/L. However, the evidence for a platelet count threshold of 10 x 10(9)/L being equivalent to 20 x 10(9)/L is not as definitive as it would first appear and further research is required. Thirdly, platelet dose does not affect the number of patients with significant bleeding, but whether it affects number of days each patient bleeds for is as yet undetermined. There is no evidence that platelet dose affects the incidence of WHO grade 4 bleeding.Prophylactic platelet transfusions were more effective than platelet-poor plasma at preventing bleeding.

Reducing noninfectious risks of blood transfusion

As screening for transfusion-associated infections has improved, noninfectious complications of transfusion now cause the majority of morbidity and mortality associated with transfusion in the United States. For example, transfusion-related acute lung injury, transfusion-associated circulatory overload, and hemolytic transfusion-reactions are the first, second, and third leading causes of death from transfusion, respectively. These complications and others are reviewed, and several controversial methods for prevention of noninfectious complications of transfusion are discussed, including universal leukoreduction of erythrocyte units, use of male-only plasma, and restriction of erythrocyte storage age.

Atopic predisposition of recipients in allergic transfusion reactions to apheresis platelets

BACKGROUND

The biologic mechanisms of allergic transfusion reactions (ATRs) are largely unknown. We sought to compare the atopic predisposition of platelet (PLT) recipients who experienced an ATR to nonreactive control recipients.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We identified 37 consecutive apheresis PLT recipients who experienced an ATR and 26 matched controls. Total immunoglobulin (Ig)E and aero- and food allergen-specific IgE were quantified in plasma by a blood test for allergies (ImmunoCAP: Phadiatop and Fx5). IgE testing of apheresis PLT supernatants was also performed.

RESULTS

Pruritus and urticaria were manifest in 91.9 and 83.8% of all ATRs, with more severe respiratory symptoms and angioedema occurring in less than 15% of cases. No subject had anaphylaxis. Sex, age, and primary diagnosis were balanced between the two groups. Total and aeroallergen-specific IgE was higher among subjects experiencing an ATR in comparison to control subjects (median total IgE, 55.5 kU/L vs. 8.3 kU/L, p = 0.002; and median aeroallergen-specific IgE, 0.57 kUa/L vs. 0.36 kUa/L, p = 0.046). IgE antibody levels in apheresis products associated with ATRs were similar to control products (p > 0.1 for all IgE tests).

CONCLUSION

Recipient atopic predisposition, as defined by IgE sensitization, is a risk factor associated with ATRs.

Allergic transfusion reactions to platelets are associated more with recipient and donor factors than with product attributes

BACKGROUND

Mechanisms of allergic transfusion reactions (ATRs) are not well understood. The aim of this study was to distinguish recipient-, donor-, and product-specific factors associated with ATRs.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of apheresis platelet (AP) products transfused from April 2000 through March 2010. The concordance rate of ATRs when split AP products were transfused to at least two individuals was compared to the overall ATR rate among all AP products. Per-person ATR rates also were compared to the overall ATR rate.

RESULTS

We observed 1616 ATRs among 93,737 transfusions, for an overall incidence of 1.72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.64%-1.81%). Of the 1616 ATRs, 630 occurred when split AP products were transfused to at least two recipients. Of these 630 AP products, ATRs were observed in at least two different recipients of the same AP collection only 6 of 630 times, for a concordant incidence of 0.95% (95% CI, 0.35%-2.06%), which is similar to the overall ATR rate (p = 0.17). On an individual level, 30.0% of recipients had ATR rates of more than 5%, and these 30.0% accounted for 62.1% of ATRs. Donors of AP products associated with concordant ATRs donated AP products that had an ATR rate of 5.8% (95% CI, 3.1%-9.7%), which is higher than the overall ATR rate (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

An observed ATR does not predict an ATR in a different recipient of a split AP product. A minority of platelet recipients accounts for the majority of ATRs. Some donors are strongly associated with ATRs. Consequently, recipient and donor factors are implicated in the mechanism of ATRs.

Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of allergic and febrile non-haemolytic transfusion reactions

BACKGROUND

Allergic and febrile non-haemolytic transfusion reactions (NHTRs) are the two most common forms of transfusion reaction. Pretransfusion medication with anti-inflammatory drugs is used in NHTR prevention, however its efficacy and safety remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effects and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing NHTR in patients with and without a history of transfusion reactions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search strategy included The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2008), Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register (December 17, 2008), MEDLINE (1950 to November (week 3) 2008), EMBASE (1988 to November (week 3) 2008), LILACS (1982 to January 12, 2009), CINAHL (1982 to December 2008), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED): 1970 to December 2008). There was no language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of interventions for the prevention of NHTR.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently selected studies, assessed the risks of bias and extracted data. Relative risks (RR) were estimated in RCTs with parallel design (PD). Odds ratio (OR) was estimated for one RCT with crossover design (CD). No meta-analysis was attempted due to differences in the pharmacotherapy of pre-transfusion medication and methodology between the studies; a per-protocol analysis was used.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes three RCTs (two PD and one CD). The PD-RCTs employed disparate units of randomisation (UofR); patient or transfusion, while the CD-RCT applied the patient as the UofR. The PD-RCTs administered leukodepleted blood products. Both PD-RCTs compared acetaminophen plus diphenhydramine (ApD) at different regimens with placebo, while the CD-RCT contrasted hydrocortisone pharmacotherapy with diphenhydramine. Both PD-RCTs found no statistically significant difference in allergic reactions (RR 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.39, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.73) and febrile reactions (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.26). The CD-RCT found a statistically significant difference in the odds of febrile reactions (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.07 to 5.27). The trials did not report anaphylactic reactions, deaths related to transfusion reactions or other adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

None of the three studies found that medication prior to transfusion reduces NHTR. This applied regardless of the patient's history of NHTR and the use of leukodepleted blood products in the transfusion. However, this conclusion is based on three trials of moderate to low quality. A better-powered RCT is necessary to evaluate the role of pretransfusion medication in the prevention of NHTR. Inclusion criteria should be restricted to patients at high risk of developing NHTR, with no restriction by age, history of transfusion reactions and type of blood products (leukodepleted or not).

Histamine: metabolism, physiology, and pathophysiology with applications in veterinary medicine

OBJECTIVE

To review the human and veterinary literature on histamine physiology and pathophysiology and potential applications for clinical use in veterinary critical care.

DATA SOURCES

Human and veterinary clinical studies, reviews, texts, and recent research in histamine receptor and antagonist therapy.

HUMAN DATA SYNTHESIS

Recent progress in molecular biology has led to a more complete understanding of the enzymes involved in histamine metabolism and histamine receptor physiology. The past decade of research has confirmed the role of histamine in the classical functions (contraction of smooth muscle, increase in vascular permeability, and stimulation of gastric acid secretion) and has also elucidated newer ones that are now under investigation. Data on the roles of histamine in angiogenesis, circadian rhythm, bone marrow regeneration, bacterial eradication, and cancer are emerging in the literature. Newer histamine antagonists are currently in drug trials and are expected to advance the clinical field in treatment of allergic, gastrointestinal, and cognitive disorders.

VETERINARY DATA SYNTHESIS

Veterinary histamine research is directed at identifying the effects of certain pharmacological agents on blood histamine concentrations and establishing the relevance in clinical disease states. Research demonstrates important species differences in regards to histamine receptor physiology and tissue response. Studies in the area of trauma, sepsis, anaphylaxis, allergy, and gastrointestinal disorders have direct applications to clinical veterinary medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Histamine plays a key role in the morbidity and mortality associated with allergy, asthma, gastric ulcers, anaphylaxis, sepsis, hemorrhagic shock, anesthesia, surgery, cardiovascular disease, cancer, CNS disorders, and immune-mediated disease. Histamine antagonism has been in common use to block its adverse effects. With recent advances in the understanding of histamine receptor physiology, pharmaceutical agents targeting these receptors have increased the therapeutic options.