Prevalence of posterior subcapsular cataracts in volunteer cytapheresis donors

Granulocyte Transfusion: Clinical Updates and a Practical Approach to Transfusion

Neutrophils are an integral component of the innate immune system and key regulators of cell-mediated defense against bacterial and fungal pathogens. The potential of granulocyte transfusions has been investigated to temporarily replenish innate immune function to prevent and/or treat infections in patients with severe neutropenia or neutrophil dysfunction. However, evidence has been largely theoretical, experimental, and/or inconclusive. Clinical efficacy has yet to be confirmed by large-scale randomized controlled clinical trials. Performing such trials has been hampered by low granulocyte collection yield and poor patient accrual. We provide a practical summary of the current literature surrounding the practice of granulocyte transfusion.

Eighteen years experience of granulocyte donations-acceptable donor safety?

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte transfusions are given to patients with life-threatening infections, refractory to treatment. The donors are stimulated with corticosteroids ± granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). However, data regarding the donors' safety is sparse. The objective was therefore to evaluate short- and long-term adverse events (AE) in G-CSF stimulated donors.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

All consecutive granulocyte donors from 1994 to 2012 were identified through our registry. From the donation records, the number of aphereses, stimulation therapy, AE, blood values post donation, and recent status were evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-four volunteer donors were mobilized for 359 collections. Age at first granulocyte donation was 43 years (median; range 19-64 years). Follow-up was 60 months (median; range 0-229 months). The dose of G-CSF per collection was 3.8 ug/kg body weight (median; range 1.6-6.0 ug/kg). Sedimentation agent was HES. Short-term AE were mild. Blood values 4 weeks post donation with minor reductions/elevations mostly resolved in later donations. Fourteen donors were excluded from the registry due to hypertension (4), diabetes (2), atrial flutter (1), breast carcinoma (1), urethral carcinoma in situ (1), MGUS (1), thrombosis (1), anaphylaxis (1), primary biliary cirrhosis (1), and unknown (1). Three donors are deceased due to diabetes, acute myocardial infarction, and unknown cause. All excluded/deceased donors except one were excluded/died at least 6 months after first granulocyte donation.

CONCLUSION

No serious short-term AE were observed. Due to the variability of diagnoses among excluded/deceased donors, we propose that it is less likely that granulocyte donations have a causative impact on these donors' exclusion or death.

Concise review: next-generation cell therapies to prevent infections in neutropenic patients

High-dose chemotherapy is accompanied by an obligate period of neutropenia. Resulting bacterial and fungal infections are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in neutropenic patients despite prophylactic antimicrobials and hematopoietic growth factor supplements. Replacing neutrophils in the patient through transfusion of donor cells is a logical solution to prevent fulminant infections. In the past, this strategy has been hampered by poor yield, inability to store collected cells, and possible donor morbidity caused by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor injections and apheresis. Today, neutrophil-like cells can be manufactured in the laboratory at the clinical scale from hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells enriched from umbilical cord blood. This article reviews the rationale for focusing research efforts toward ex vivo neutrophil production and explores clinical settings for future trials.

Efficacy and side effects of granulocyte collection in healthy donors

BACKGROUND

We report on the efficacy and side effects of granulocyte collection, which is comparatively infrequently performed in Germany.

METHODS

Data from 378 healthy donors who underwent 914 granulocyte collections between 1999 and 2007 were retrospectively analyzed. Donors received G-CSF (lenograstim) at a median dose of 5.58 (3.25-7.36) μg/kg body weight with (n = 243) or without (n = 57) 4 mg dexamethasone. Side effects were recorded by donor monitoring and interview (questionnaire).

RESULTS

The median granulocyte yield in apheresis products was 8.47 × 10(10) (3.07-14.92 × 10(10)). Granulocyte yields correlated significantly with gender, baseline WBC, PMN and PLT counts, and nicotine consumption. Dexamethasone and lenograstim administration was more effective than lenograstim administration alone (p < 0.001). Side effects of granulocyte mobilization were generally mild: bone pain in 31.4%, headache in 19.6%, and fatigue in 15.7% of donors. During follow-up (4 weeks), pruritus and/or exanthema were reported in 17.6% of donors.

CONCLUSIONS

Granulocyte mobilization with lenograstim with or without dexamethasone was a safe and effective regimen for granulocyte mobilization. Side effects were tolerable and milder than those seen in peripheral blood stem cell donors. Long-term monitoring of granulocyte donors is important to establish optimal standards for the procedure.

Impact of the mobilization regimen and the harvesting technique on the granulocyte yield in healthy donors for granulocyte transfusion therapy

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte mobilization and harvesting, the two major phases of granulocyte collection, have not been standardized.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The data on 123 granulocyte collections were retrospectively investigated for the effect of the mobilization regimen and the harvesting technique. After a single subcutaneous dose (600 µg) of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) with (n = 68) or without (n = 40) 8 mg of orally administered dexamethasone, 108 granulocyte donors underwent granulocyte collections. Moreover, 15 peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) donors who had received 400 µg/m2 or 10 µg/kg G-CSF for 5 days underwent granulocyte collections on the day after the last PBSC collections (PBSC-GTX donors). Granulocyte harvesting was performed by leukapheresis with (n = 108) or without (n = 15) using high-molecular-weight hydroxyethyl starch (HES).

RESULTS

Granulocyte donors who received mobilization with G-CSF plus dexamethasone produced significantly higher granulocyte yields than those who received G-CSF alone (7.2 × 10(10)  ± 2.0 × 10(10) vs. 5.7 × 10(10)  ± 1.7 × 10(10) , p = 0.006). PBSC-GTX donors produced a remarkably high granulocyte yield (9.7 × 10(10)  ± 2.3 × 10(10) ). The use of HES was associated with better granulocyte collection efficiency (42 ± 7.8% vs. 10 ± 9.1%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

G-CSF plus dexamethasone produces higher granulocyte yields than G-CSF alone. Granulocyte collection from PBSC donors appears to be a rational strategy, since it produces high granulocyte yields when the related patients are at a high risk for infection and reduces difficulties in finding granulocyte donors. HES should be used in apheresis procedures.

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.