Granulocyte?colony-stimulating factor?mobilized prophylactic granulocyte transfusions given after allogeneic peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation result in a modest reduction of febrile days and intravenous antibiotic usage

How are granulocytes for transfusion best used? The past, the present and the future

Granulocyte transfusions continue to be used in clinical practice, predominantly for treatment of refractory infection in the setting of severe neutropenia. There is biological plausibility for effectiveness in these patients with deficiencies of neutrophils, either as a consequence of disease or treatment. However, there is a chequered history of conducting and completing interventional trials to define optimal use, and many uncertainties remain regarding schedule and dose. Practice and clinical studies are severely limited by the short shelf life and viability of current products, which often restricts the timely access to granulocyte transfusions. In the future, methods are needed to optimise donor-derived granulocyte products. Options include use of manufactured neutrophils, expanded and engineered from stem cells. Further possibilities include manipulation of neutrophils to enhance their function and/or longevity. Granulocyte transfusions contain a heterogeneous mix of cells, and there is additional interest in how these transfusions may have immunomodulatory effects, including for potential uses as adjuncts for anti-cancer effects.

Granulocyte Transfusion Therapy: Institutional Experience of Benefit in Cancer Patients with Prolonged Neutropenic Sepsis—A Retrospective Study

Introduction Patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy for hematological malignancy and stem cell transplantation are at increased risk of neutropenia.

Neutropenia is among the frequent side effects of intensive treatments, and when absolute neutrophil count (ANC) falls < 500/µL, the risk of microbial and fungal infection increases significantly.

As neutropenia is the main cause of these infections, transfusion of granulocyte immediately as a replacement is a life-saving therapeutic option to support these patients by restoring neutrophil counts and aiding in the resolution of infection.

Objective The present study is a retrospective single institutional analysis of granulocyte transfusion therapy in children and young adults with cancer who received treatment with GT during prolonged and profound life threatening neutropenia.

Materials and Methods This study was a retrospective analysis of 66 granulocyte transfusions in 36 patients of hematological and solid malignancy with severe and prolonged neutropenia in the department of Medical Oncology, Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences Indore, between September 2019 and March 2022.

Donors were either patients' relatives or voluntary donors without comorbidities.

All granulocyte concentrates were collected by centrifugation leukapheresis and irradiated with 2500 centigray and immediately transfused in full, to the patient over 60 ot 120 minutes with appropriate premedication.

Results A total of 36 patients (M:F, 19:17) with a median age of 16 years (2–43) received 66 granulocyte transfusions. The diagnosis of patients included acute myelogenous leukemia (n = 17), B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (n = 10), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 3), Ewing's sarcoma (n = 2), neuroblastoma (n = 1), malignant melanoma (n = 1), aplastic anemia (n = 1), osteosarcoma (n = 1). All had severe neutropenia with absolute neutrophil count < 0.5 × 109/L. The median duration of severe neutropenia was 16 days. Patients received a median cell dose of granulocytes 2.9 × 1010/L. A favorable response was seen in 28 (78%) patients, whereas an unfavorable response was seen in 8 patients (23%).

Conclusion A granulocyte therapy was effective in many critically sick patients with prolonged and profound neutropenia. Granulocyte transfusions may be more beneficial in selected patients where it provides more time to overcome refractory infections with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Granulocyte transfusion are at best a “bridge” that gives time to marrow recovery. The challenges to using GT are clinical, finding patients who may get benefitted, and logistical, selection of donors and harvest technique. Randomized trials with large numbers of patients are required to prepare guidelines for granulocyte use.

In canine bacterial pneumonia circulating granulocyte counts determine outcome from donor cells

BACKGROUND

In experimental canine septic shock, depressed circulating granulocyte counts were associated with a poor outcome and increasing counts with prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) improved outcome. Therapeutic G-CSF, in contrast, did not improve circulating counts or outcome, and therefore investigation was undertaken to determine whether transfusing granulocytes therapeutically would improve outcome.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Twenty-eight purpose-bred beagles underwent an intrabronchial Staphylococcus aureus challenge and 4 hours later were randomly assigned to granulocyte (40-100 × 109 cells) or plasma transfusion.

RESULTS

Granulocyte transfusion significantly expanded the low circulating counts for hours compared to septic controls but was not associated with significant mortality benefit (1/14, 7% vs. 2/14, 14%, respectively; p = 0.29). Septic animals with higher granulocyte count at 4 hours (median [interquartile range] of 3.81 3.39-5.05] vs. 1.77 [1.25-2.50]) had significantly increased survival independent of whether they were transfused with granulocytes. In a subgroup analysis, animals with higher circulating granulocyte counts receiving donor granulocytes had worsened lung injury compared to septic controls. Conversely, donor granulocytes decreased lung injury in septic animals with lower counts.

CONCLUSION

During bacterial pneumonia, circulating counts predict the outcome of transfusing granulocytes. With low but normal counts, transfusing granulocytes does not improve survival and injures the lung, whereas for animals with very low counts, but not absolute neutropenia, granulocyte transfusion improves lung function.

Immune reconstitution following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation using different stem cell sources

Introduction: Adequate immune reconstitution post-HSCT is crucial for the success of transplantation, and can be affected by both patient- and transplant-related factors. Areas covered: A systematic literature search in PubMed, Scopus, and abstracts of international congresses is performed to investigate immune recovery posttransplant. In this review, we discuss the pattern of immune recovery in the post-transplant period focusing on the impact of stem cell source (bone marrow, peripheral blood stem cells, and cord blood) on immune recovery and HSCT outcome. We examine the impact of serotherapy on immune reconstitution and the need to tailor dosing of serotherapy agents when using different stem cell sources. We discuss new techniques being used particularly with cord blood and haploidentical grafts to improve immune recovery in each scenario. Expert opinion: Cord blood T cells provide a unique CD4+ biased immune reconstitution. Initial studies using targeted serotherapy with cord grafts showed improved immune recovery with limited alloreactivity. Two competing haploidentical approaches have developed in recent years including TCRαβ/CD19 depleted grafts and post-cyclophosphamide haplo-HSCT. Both approaches have comparable survival rates with limited alloreactivity. However, delayed immune reconstitution is still an ongoing problem and could be improved by modified donor lymphocyte infusions from the same haploidentical donor.

An International Registry of Granulocyte Transfusions

Introduction

Granulocyte transfusions are used to either treat or prevent life-threatening infections in neutropenic patients. Current evidence from clinical trials does not support or reject efficacy, nor guide practice.

Methods

A group of investigators have led the efforts to create an online registry to gather information on granulocyte transfusion practices from as broad a range of international settings. The data forms were adapted from an on-going study in England for electronic data management. Data is collected at the time of the request for granulocytes, weekly, at 28 days, and at 6 months. Information collected includes donor, granulocyte unit, patient and illness characteristics, and outcomes.

Results

The PROspective GRanulocyte usage and outcomEs Survey (ProGrES) is currently open for data entry. Centres across the UK have collected data on 80 subjects. Five institutions from 4 countries (2 from the US, 1 each from Brazil, and national services in Canada and France) are in the process of joining the study. Other countries have expressed interest.

Conclusion

It is feasible to develop an international registry of granulocyte transfusions to characterise current practices and describe outcomes. This registry would provide a platform to explore the relationship between intervention and outcomes, and to generate evidence to inform granulocyte transfusion efficacy.

Granulocyte transfusions: A concise review for practitioners

Granulocyte transfusions (GTXs) have been used to treat and prevent infections in neutropenic patients for more than 40 years, despite persistent controversy regarding their efficacy. This narrative review attempts to complement recent systematic reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration and provide both historical context and critical assessment of the most significant clinical studies published over the years. The data suggest that properly collected and promptly infused granulocytes are active against infections, both bacterial and fungal. The most important question that remains unanswered is in which patients the administration of granulocytes will be beneficial. The preponderance of evidence suggests that granulocyte transfusions may be efficacious in few select cases as a temporizing measure to control an infection that is expected (or proven) to be refractory to optimal antimicrobial treatment, and that could otherwise be controlled by marrow recovery, which is expected to happen. In this regard, they are best considered a "bridge" that grants enough time for the recipient to develop their own response to the infection. The challenges to use GTXs successfully are both clinical, in terms of timely identifying the patients who may benefit, and logistical, in terms of optimal selection of donors and collection technique.

Large-scale ex vivo generation of human neutrophils from cord blood CD34+ cells

Conventional high-dose chemotherapy frequently leads to severe neutropenia, during which patients experience a high risk of infection. Although support care with donor’s neutrophils is possible this choice is largely hampered by the limited availability of matched donors. To overcome this problem, we explored a large-scale ex vivo production of neutrophils from hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) using a four-stage culture approach in a roller-bottle production platform. We expanded CD34⁺ HSCs isolated from umbilical cord blood (UCB) using our in-house special medium supplemented with cytokine cocktails and achieved about 49000-fold expansion of cells, among which about 61% were differentiated mature neutrophils. Ex vivo differentiated neutrophils exhibited a chemotactic activity similar to those from healthy donors and were capable of killing E. coli in vitro. The expansion yield as reported herein was at least 5 times higher than any other methods reported in the literature. Moreover, the cost of our modified medium was only a small fraction (<1/60) of the StemSpan^™ SFEM. Therefore, our ex vivo expansion platform, coupled with a low cost of stem cell culture due to the use of a modified medium, makes large-scale manufacturing neutrophils possible, which should be able to greatly ameliorate neutrophil shortage for transfusion in the clinic.

Update on granulocyte transfusions: accumulation of promising data, but still lack of decisive evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Inconsistent results regarding the clinical efficacy of granulocyte transfusions for the treatment or prophylaxis of life-threatening infections in neutropenic patients have been attributed to insufficient number of transfused neutrophils. Since the introduction of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to the granulocyte mobilization regimen in the 1990s, the number of transfused cells significantly increased, which directly translated to a significant increase in absolute neutrophil counts in the transfused patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

For therapeutic granulocyte transfusions, neither of the two randomized controlled studies in the G-CSF era could demonstrate a clear clinical benefit. However, a number of small studies or case series have suggested its clinical efficacy, including one that demonstrated the clinical response against drug-resistant invasive fusariosis. For prophylactic granulocyte transfusions, there have been scarce reports in the G-CSF era. A pulmonary reaction is the most significant adverse event after granulocyte transfusions, although its reported frequency varies among studies.

SUMMARY

Despite the expectation that the increased number of transfused neutrophils enables the clear demonstration of the clinical benefit, the role of therapeutic granulocyte transfusions remains controversial. Future directions may include: identifying the patient population who would benefit most from granulocyte transfusions; minimizing the risk of adverse events by identifying the risk factors and the prevention methods; and finding a way to prove the clinical benefit of granulocyte transfusions in therapeutic and prophylactic settings.

Infectious diseases in allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: prevention and prophylaxis strategy guidelines 2016

Infectious complications after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) remain a clinical challenge. This is a guideline provided by the AGIHO (Infectious Diseases Working Group) of the DGHO (German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology). A core group of experts prepared a preliminary guideline, which was discussed, reviewed, and approved by the entire working group. The guideline provides clinical recommendations for the preventive management including prophylactic treatment of viral, bacterial, parasitic, and fungal diseases. The guideline focuses on antimicrobial agents but includes recommendations on the use of vaccinations. This is the updated version of the AGHIO guideline in the field of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation utilizing methods according to evidence-based medicine criteria.

Granulocyte transfusions for treating infections in people with neutropenia or neutrophil dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Despite modern antimicrobials and supportive therapy bacterial and fungal infections are still major complications in people with prolonged disease-related or treatment-related neutropenia. Transfusions of granulocytes have a long history of usage in clinical practice to support and treat severe infection in high-risk groups of patients with neutropenia or neutrophil dysfunction. However, there is considerable current variability in therapeutic granulocyte transfusion practice, and uncertainty about the beneficial effect of transfusions given as an adjunct to antibiotics on mortality. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of granulocyte transfusions compared to no granulocyte transfusions as adjuncts to antimicrobials for treating infections in people with neutropenia or disorders of neutrophil function aimed at reducing mortality and other adverse outcomes related to infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 2). MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980) and ongoing trial databases to 11 February 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing people with neutropenia or disorders of neutrophil dysfunction receiving granulocyte transfusions to treat infection with a control group receiving no granulocyte transfusions. Neonates are the subject of another Cochrane review and were excluded from this review. There was no restriction by outcomes examined, language or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 trials that met the inclusion criteria with a total of 587 participants. We also identified another ongoing trial. These trials were conducted between 1975 and 2015. None of the studies included people with neutrophil dysfunction. The studies differed in the type of infections they included. Six studies included both children and adults, however data were not reported separately for children and adults. The two newest studies gave granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) to donors; both were stopped early due to lack of recruitment. Three studies re-randomised participants and therefore quantitative analysis was unable to be performed.Overall the quality of the evidence was very low to low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to many of the studies being at high risk of bias, and many of the outcomes being imprecise.There may be no difference in all-cause mortality over 30 days between participants receiving therapeutic granulocyte transfusions and those that did not (six studies; 321 participants; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.04; very low-quality evidence). There were no differences between the granulocyte dose subgroups (< 1 x 10(10) per day versus ≥ 1 x 10(10) per day) (test for subgroup differences P = 0.39). There was a difference in all-cause mortality between the studies based on the age of the study (published before 2000 versus published 2000 or later) (test for subgroup differences P = 0.03). There was no difference in all-cause mortality between participants receiving granulocyte transfusions and those that did not in the newest study (one study; 111 participants; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.73, low-quality evidence). There may be a reduction in all-cause mortality in participants receiving granulocyte transfusions compared to those that did not in studies published before the year 2000 (five studies; 210 participants; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.85; low-quality evidence).There may be no difference in clinical reversal of concurrent infection between participants receiving therapeutic granulocyte transfusions and those that did not (five studies; 286 participants; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.19; low-quality evidence).There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a difference in pulmonary serious adverse events (1 study; 24 participants; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.88; very low-quality evidence).None of the studies reported number of days on therapeutic antibiotics, number of adverse events requiring discontinuation of treatment, or quality of life.Six studies reported their funding sources and all were funded by governments or charities.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people who are neutropenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or a haematopoietic stem cell transplant, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether granulocyte transfusions affect all-cause mortality. To be able to detect a decrease in all-cause mortality from 35% to 30% would require a study containing at least 2748 participants (80% power, 5% significance). There is low-grade evidence that therapeutic granulocyte transfusions may not increase the number of participants with clinical resolution of an infection.

Granulocyte transfusions for preventing infections in people with neutropenia or neutrophil dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Despite modern antimicrobials and supportive therapy, bacterial and fungal infections are still major complications in people with prolonged disease-related or therapy-related neutropenia. Since the late 1990s there has been increasing demand for donated granulocyte transfusions to treat or prevent severe infections in people who lack their own functional granulocytes. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic granulocyte transfusions compared with a control population not receiving this intervention for preventing all-cause mortality, mortality due to infection, and evidence of infection due to infection or due to any other cause in people with neutropenia or disorders of neutrophil function.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), theTransfusion Evidence Library (from 1980) and ongoing trial databases to April 20 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing people receiving granulocyte transfusions to prevent the development of infection with a control group receiving no granulocyte transfusions. Neonates are the subject of another Cochrane review and were excluded from this review. There was no restriction by outcomes examined, but this review focuses on mortality, mortality due to infection and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials met the inclusion criteria. One trial is still ongoing, leaving a total of 11 trials eligible involving 653 participants. These trials were conducted between 1978 and 2006 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations. None of the studies included people with neutrophil dysfunction. Ten studies included only adults, and two studies included children and adults. Ten of these studies contained separate data for each arm and were able to be critically appraised. One study re-randomised people and therefore quantitative analysis was unable to be performed.Overall, the quality of the evidence was very low to low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to many of the studies being at high risk of bias, and many of the outcome estimates being imprecise.All-cause mortality was reported for nine studies (609 participants). There was no difference in all-cause mortality over 30 days between people receiving prophylactic granulocyte transfusions and those that did not (seven studies; 437 participants; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36, very low-quality evidence).Mortality due to infection was reported for seven studies (398 participants). There was no difference in mortality due to infection over 30 days between people receiving prophylactic granulocyte transfusions and those that did not (six studies; 286 participants; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.44, very low-quality evidence).The number of people with localised or systemic bacterial or fungal infections was reported for nine studies (609 participants). There were differences between the granulocyte dose subgroups (test for subgroup differences P = 0.01). There was no difference in the number of people with infections over 30 days between people receiving prophylactic granulocyte transfusions and those that did not in the low-dose granulocyte group (< 1.0 x 10(10) granulocytes per day) (four studies, 204 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.20; very low-quality evidence). There was a decreased number of people with infections over 30 days in the people receiving prophylactic granulocyte transfusions in the intermediate-dose granulocyte group (1.0 x 10(10) to 4.0 x 10(10) granulocytes per day) (4 studies; 293 participants; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.63, low-quality evidence).There was a decreased number of participants with bacteraemia and fungaemia in the participants receiving prophylactic granulocyte transfusions (nine studies; 609 participants; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.65, low-quality evidence).There was no difference in the number of participants with localised bacterial or fungal infection in the participants receiving prophylactic granulocyte transfusions (six studies; 296 participants; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.14; very low-quality evidence).Serious adverse events were only reported for participants receiving granulocyte transfusions and donors of granulocyte transfusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people who are neutropenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or a haematopoietic stem cell transplant, there is low-grade evidence that prophylactic granulocyte transfusions decrease the risk of bacteraemia or fungaemia. There is low-grade evidence that the effect of prophylactic granulocyte transfusions may be dose-dependent, a dose of at least 10 x 10(10) per day being more effective at decreasing the risk of infection. There is insufficient evidence to determine any difference in mortality rates due to infection, all-cause mortality, or serious adverse events.

Infectious complications of stem cell transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an accepted treatment for a variety of hematologic malignancies. The profound immunosuppression these patients experience adversely affects their risk of infection. This risk is much higher than in the general population and requires aggressive diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. The chapter will outline the major infections after HSCT.

Granulocyte transfusions in hematologic malignancy patients with invasive pulmonary aspergillosis: outcomes and complications

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte transfusions (GTXs) have been used successfully as an adjunctive treatment option for invasive infections in some neutropenic patients with underlying hematologic malignancy (HM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We sought to determine the impact of GTX as an adjunct to antifungal therapy in 128 patients with HM and prolonged neutropenia (≥14 days) with a proven or probable invasive aspergillosis (IA) infection by retrospectively reviewing our institutional database.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients received GTX and 75 did not. By univariate analysis, patients with invasive pulmonary aspergillosis who received GTX were less likely to respond to antifungal therapy (P = 0.03), and more likely to die of IA (P = 0.009) when compared with the non-GTX group. Among patients who received GTX, 53% developed a pulmonary reaction. Furthermore, IA-related death was associated with the number of GTX given (P = 0.018) and the early initiation of GTX within 7 days after starting antifungal therapy (P = 0.001). By multivariate competing risk analysis, patients who received GTX were more likely to die of IA than patients who did not receive GTX (P = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that GTX does not improve response to antifungal therapy and is associated with worse outcomes of IA infection in HM patients, particularly those with pulmonary involvement.

The granulocytes in neutropenia 1 (GIN 1) study: a safety study of granulocytes collected from whole blood and stored in additive solution and plasma

OBJECTIVE/AIM

To evaluate the safety of transfusing pooled, whole blood-derived granulocytes in additive solution and plasma (GASP) in 30 recipients.

BACKGROUND

Demand for granulocytes in England has increased five-fold. With the advantages of reduced red cell, plasma and overall volume, GASP maintains function in vitro.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Observations were recorded prior to and post transfusion. Increments were recorded at 1 h and the following morning. Leucocyte antibody screening was undertaken prior to and at 1-6 months following transfusion.

RESULTS

Thirty patients aged between 8 months and 68 years received 221 GASP in 148 transfusion episodes. GASP contained an average of 1.0 × 10(10) granulocytes in 207 mL. Adults usually received two packs and children 10-20 mL kg(-1). Children and adults received a median [interquartile range (IQR)] dose of 12.5 (9.1-25.3) and 19.7 (12.0-25.8) × 10(9) granulocytes per transfusion, respectively. There was one episode of transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO) in a patient with chronic cardiac failure following 600 mL of unpooled granulocytes, other fluids and one GASP. New leucocyte alloimmunisation occurred in 3/30 recipients 10%. No other significant reactions were reported. Median peripheral blood neutrophil increments at 1 h post transfusion were 0.06 (IQR, 0.01-0.17) in children and (0.03) (IQR, 0-0.16) in adults.

CONCLUSION

GASP has a similar safety profile to other sources of granulocytes for patients with refractory infection or in need of secondary prophylactic transfusion. Further studies are required to clarify the role of GASP in the treatment of neutropenic patients.

Adverse events and safety issues in blood donation--a comprehensive review

Although blood donation is generally safe, a variety of risks and complications exist, the most common being iron deficiency, vasovagal reactions and citrate-related events. In the last decades, extensive efforts have significantly improved recipient and product safety, but there is still great potential to optimise donor care. Many therapies in modern medicine depend on the prompt availability of blood products, therefore it is crucial to maintain a motivated and healthy donor pool in view of a limited number of healthy volunteers willing and able to give blood or blood components. We present a comprehensive review on adverse events addressing all types of blood donation including whole blood, plasma, platelet, peripheral blood stem cell, leucocyte and bone marrow donation. In addition, we outline strategies for the prevention and treatment of these events and give a blueprint for future research in this field.

Treatment of severe neutropenic sepsis with granulocyte transfusion in the current era--experience from an adult haematology unit in Singapore

OBJECTIVES

Granulocyte transfusion's (GT) efficacy among adult severe neutropenic sepsis (SNS) patients remains uncertain. We assessed GT's efficacy and its determinants among SNS patients in an adult haematology unit. The feasibility and safety of granulocyte donation (GD) and determinants of granulocyte yield were also evaluated.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of granulocyte donors and recipients from March 2008 to October 2009.

RESULTS

Donors: Sixty GDs with a median WBC yield (WBCY) of 65·49 (31·30-131·72) × 10(9) were collected from 48 donors (9 repeat donors) using hydroxyethyl starch and intermittent flow centrifugation aphaeresis after receiving 8 mg dexamethasone and 300 mcg granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, with no serious adverse reactions (SAR). Six donations were urgently collected <3 h after pre-medication, the median WBCY of which was not significantly different from donations collected >12 h after pre-medication [59·18 (45·68-62·90) × 10(9) vs 67·45 (31·30-131·72) × 10(9) , P = 0·140]. Only pre-GD absolute neutrophil count (ANC) correlated with WBCY.

PATIENTS

Fifteen patients (12 acute leukaemias, 1 severe AA, 1 myelodysplastic syndrome and 1 lymphoma) received median 3 (2-9) ABO/RhD-matched GTs over 2-24 (median 7) days at 3-61 (median 28) days from severe neutropenia (SN) onset without SAR. They received intensive chemotherapies (N = 9), allogeneic transplant (N = 3), autologous stem cell rescue (N = 1) or immunosuppressants (N = 2). Fourteen had bacterial (N = 1) infections, fungal (N = 3) infections or both (N = 10) and one had severe viral pneumonitis; 63·6 and 30·8% of bacterial and fungal infections responded, respectively. Median ANC increase (ANC(increase) ) was 1·26 (0-9·25) × 10(9) at 5-20 (median 11) h post-GT. On multivariate analysis, each patient's median ANC(increase) only significantly correlated positively with median WBC dose/kg (P = 0·013). Five (33·3%) patients survived to discharge; the rest had infection-related mortality (IRM). IRM was significantly associated with inotropic requirement (P = 0·004), ventilatory requirement (P = 0·017) and persistent SN (P = 0·007).

CONCLUSION

GD is safe and feasible with good WBCY obtainable using our protocol. The effect of shortening pre-medication interval on WBCY which may prevent delay in initiating GT is worth evaluating. GT most likely benefits SNS patients with prospects of neutrophil recovery before haemodynamic deterioration. Large randomised trials investigating the role and timing of GT among such patients are required.

Sequential administration of sargramostim and filgrastim in pediatric allogeneic stem cell transplantation recipients undergoing myeloablative conditioning

G-CSF and GM-CSF both hasten myeloid engraftment post-MA-alloSCT; however, GM-CSF is earlier acting and less expensive. The objective was to evaluate efficacy/safety of sequential administration of GM-CSF followed by G-CSF in children post-MA-alloSCT. From January 2001 to June 2005, 31 children received 32 MA-alloSCT: mean age 6.65 yr; MRD BM or PBSC vs. related or unrelated UCB 11:21; malignant vs. non-malignant disorders 22:10. GM-CSF (250 microg/m(2) IV QD) began on day of stem cell infusion. GM-CSF was switched to G-CSF (10 microg/kg IV QD) when WBC >or= 300/mm(3) x 2 days. G-CSF continued until ANC >or= 2500/mm(3) x 2 days, then tapered to maintain ANC >or= 1000/mm(3). Median time to myeloid engraftment (ANC >or= 500/mm(3) x 3 days) was 17 days [13 days vs. 24 days, MRD BM/PBSC vs. UCB (p < 0.0001)], occurring at a median time of two days after switch to G-CSF. Clinically relevant adverse events were bone pain (n = 8) and large pleural effusion (n = 1). It was estimated that sequential GM-CSF/G-CSF was cost-effective compared with G-CSF alone [cost-savings of $1311/patient ($41,952/study), 2007 Red Book Average Wholesale Price]. In summary, it was demonstrated that sequential administration of GM-CSF/G-CSF post-MA-alloSCT was safe, cost-effective and resulted in prompt myeloid engraftment.

Granulocyte transfusions in neutropenic patients: beneficial effects proven?

Despite the huge armamentarium of modern antibiotics and anti-fungals, infections remain life-threatening events in patients with profound neutropenia. For decades, the value of granulocyte transfusions (GT) has been explored and results are still not conclusive. However, it has been shown that GT increase peripheral blood neutrophil counts of recipients and lead to migration of functional neutrophils into inflamed tissues. A favourable increment of absolute neutrophil counts is observed after concentrates from technically up-to-date apherese from granulocyte-colony stimulating factor-stimulated donors. Most studies indicated a potential positive effect on infection elimination with a minimum cell content of GT (1.5-3 x 10(8)/kg recipient body weight). Although to date the beneficial effect of GT is not proven in prospective randomized trials, in specific situations GT is an option to treat infections along with antibiotics when there is profound neutropenia. However, these patients in critical situations need to be treated within carefully designed studies based on the best known methods for providing granulocyte concentrates in sufficient dose and frequency, standardized similar to other blood product transfusions. That includes definition of minimum cell content, maximum interval between apheresis and application, storage conditions, methods of donor stimulation according to patient's body weight and frequency of GT. This review considers the results of recent studies using GT from cytokine-stimulated donors and the consequences and effects in recipients and donors.

Granulocyte transfusions for preventing infections in patients with neutropenia or neutrophil dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Since the late 1990s there has been increasing demand for donated granulocyte transfusions to treat or prevent severe infections in patients who lack their own functional granulocytes. Other than in neonates, no systematic reviews have been performed for over 10 years relating to the efficacy of prophylactic granulocyte transfusions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of granulocyte transfusions compared with a control population not receiving this intervention for preventing mortality due to infection or due to any other cause in patients with neutropenia or disorders of neutrophil function.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 3, 2008, MEDLINE, EMBASE and other specialised databases up to October 2008. We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients receiving granulocyte transfusions to prevent the development of infection with a control group receiving no granulocyte transfusions. Neonates have been the subject of a recent review and were excluded. There was no restriction by outcomes examined, but this review focuses on mortality, mortality due to infection and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed potentially relevant studies for inclusion. Data were extracted by two review authors and the methodological quality was examined. Data were analysed using random and fixed effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials met the inclusion criteria. Allocation in all trials was random, with the control arm receiving no prophylactic therapy, except one trial in which the control group received specific prophylactic antibiotics. One study reported biological randomisation based upon the availability of suitably matched, related donors rather than strict randomisation. All trials were conducted over twenty years ago with one exception, a study from 2006 in which donors were pre-medicated with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) resulting in significantly higher mean doses of granulocytes collected for transfusion. Different policies otherwise applied for the schedule for transfusion, method of granulocyte procurement and criteria for defining infection. Combining the results showed a relative risk (RR) for mortality of 0.94 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.71 to 1.25). Exclusion of the two trials which reported transfusion of an average number of granulocytes below 1 x 10(10) indicated a summary RR for mortality and mortality due to infection of 0.89 (CI 0.64 to 1.24) and 0.36 (0.14 to 0.96) respectively.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

The controlled trials that have been identified raise the possibility that prophylactic granulocyte transfusions at a dose of at least 1 x 10(10) may reduce the risk of mortality from infection. Overall mortality was not affected. However, the majority of studies were performed decades ago, and standards of supportive care have advanced considerably. These earlier trials were also based on transfusing lower yields of collected granulocytes than currently recommended. It is difficult to recommend prophylactic granulocyte transfusions outside the setting of ongoing controlled trials, given the resource and cost implications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Larger trials are needed to establish the validity of the potential benefits raised by this review, in view of the methodological limitations, the small sample sizes and the heterogeneous definitions of infection that were encountered in the included studies.

Granulocyte Transfusion: Current Status

Infection associated with therapy-related neutropenia continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Renewed interest in granulocyte transfusion therapy as treatment for this condition has been generated by the observation that large doses of granulocytes can be obtained from donors who have been stimulated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Granulocytes collected from these donors have been shown to effectively raise the patient's neutrophil count and appear to function normally as judged both by in vitro and in vivo measures. The evidence for clinical efficacy is limited to that of case reports and small series, and the results are not uniform. Randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to determine whether this therapy is useful in either clearing infections or prolonging survival.