Can we transfuse wisely in patients undergoing chemotherapy for acute leukemia or autologous stem cell transplantation?

Age, CD34+ cell dose, conditioning and pre-transplant cytopenias can help predict transfusion support in lymphoma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is a widely used therapy for lymphoma patients and can nowadays be performed on an outpatient basis. This study aimed to describe transfusion support in lymphoma patients undergoing ASCT and identify increased or prolonged transfusion requirement predictors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of all consecutive lymphoma patients undergoing ASCT between 2010 and 2020.

RESULTS

Out of 226 patients, 145 (64%) received red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, whereas all 226 (100%) required platelet transfusion (PT). Transfusions between Day +1 and +30 were higher in patients over 60 (2 [1-4] vs. 2 [0-2] RBC; p = 0.001 and 4 [2-8] vs. 3 [2-4] PT; p < 0.001); patients with pre-transplant anaemia (4 [2.5-6] vs. 2 [0-2] RBC; p < 0.001 and 5 [3-9] vs. 3 [2-4] PT; p = 0.001); pre-transplant thrombocytopenia (2 [1-4] vs. 2 [0-2] RBC; p < 0.001 and 4 [3-8.5] vs. 2 [1-3] PT; p < 0.001) or CD34+ cell dose <4 × 106 /kg (2 [0-4] vs. 2 [0-2] RBC; p = 0.024 and 4 [2-6] vs. 2 [1-3.5] PT; p < 0.001). RBC transfusion independence was reached later in patients receiving carmustine, cytarabine, etoposide and melphalan (BEAM) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.6; confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2.3) and those requiring RBC before infusion and/or with pre-transplant anaemia (HR 2.2; CI 1.4-3.4). Age above 60 (HR 1.4; CI 1.0-1.9), BEAM conditioning (HR 1.4; CI 1.0-2.0) and pre-transplant thrombocytopenia and/or requiring PT before infusion (HR 1.8; CI 1.4-2.5) entailed longer time until PT independence.

CONCLUSION

These four factors (age ≥60 years; BEAM conditioning, CD34+ dose <4 × 106 /kg and pre-transplant cytopenia and/or Day -10 to 0 transfusion) allowed dividing patients into three groups with significant differences between them regarding the time until transfusion independence.

Implementation and Impact of Choosing Wisely Recommendations in Oncology

The Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign, launched in 2012, includes oncology-specific recommendations to promote evidence-based care and deimplementation of low-value practices. However, it is unclear to what extent the campaign has prompted practice change. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the uptake of cancer-specific CW recommendations focusing on the period before the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Grimshaw's deimplementation framework to thematically group the findings and extracted information on implementation strategies, barriers, and facilitators from articles reporting on active implementation. In the 98 articles addressing 32 unique recommendations, most reported on passive changes in adherence pre-post publication of CW recommendations. Use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer and reduction in staging imaging for early breast cancer were the most commonly evaluated recommendations. Most articles assessing passive changes in adherence pre-post CW publication reported improvement. All articles evaluating active implementation (10 of 98) reported improved compliance (range: 3%-73% improvement). Most common implementation strategies included provider education and/or stakeholder engagement. Preconceived views and reluctance to adopt new practices were common barriers; common facilitators included the use of technology and provider education to increase provider buy-in. Given the limited uptake of oncology-specific CW recommendations thus far, more attention toward supporting active implementation is needed. Effective adoption of CW likely requires a multipronged approach that includes building stakeholder buy-in through engagement and education, using technology-enabled forced functions to facilitate change along with policy and reimbursement models that disincentivize low-value care. Professional societies have a role to play in supporting this next phase of CW.

Are we choosing mobilization regimens for autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma wisely: A single center comparison of GCSF+/-plerixafor vs cyclophosphamide/GCSF+/-plerixafor

BACKGROUND

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard consolidation treatment for eligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM). There is no standardized mobilization regimen for collection of CD34+ stem cells, which is crucial to the success of ASCT. Cyclophosphamide/GCSF is an effective regimen, although reported associated toxicities include risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Since plerixafor was introduced in Canada, this mobilization agent has been increasingly used as needed with GCSF at Kingston Health Science Centre (KHSC), with elimination of cyclophosphamide. This single center, retrospective, quality improvement study evaluates mobilization and ASCT outcomes of MM patients who had undergone stem cell mobilization at KHSC with cyclophosphamide/GCSF+/-plerixafor without antibiotics, cyclophosphamide/GCSF+/-plerixafor with antibiotics, and GCSF+/-plerixafor without antibiotics.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted evaluating 137 patients. The primary outcome measure was FN rates with mobilization. Balancing measures include CD34+ cell collected, plerixafor usage, days of apheresis and transplant outcomes. Chi-square, ANOVA, or Kruskal-Wallis methods were used to test statistical significance where appropriate.

RESULTS

Our study noted a higher total and day one CD34+ count in the two groups utilizing cyclophosphamide in mobilization. All nine cases of FN occurred in these two groups (P < .05). Addition of antibiotics decreased, but did not eliminate risk of FN. There were no significant differences in the rate of plerixafor usage and number of apheresis days. Difference in transplant outcomes, including engraftment and transfusion support, were statistically but not clinically significant. A larger sample size may be needed to explore this fully. There was no significant difference in length of transplant hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The elimination of cyclophosphamide from mobilization regimens for MM appears to significantly reduce FN rates, without increasing balancing measures such as total number of apheresis days, plerixafor usage, duration of transplant hospitalization or mortality outcomes.

Anemia-Induced Bleeding in Patients with Platelet Disorders

Anemia is not only a consequence of bleeding, but also a modifiable risk factor for bleeding in patients with thrombocytopenia or platelet function defects. In this review we outline the mechanism of anemia-induced bleeding in patients with platelet disorders, which involves a disturbance in normal red blood cell (RBC) rheology and reduced platelet margination to the endothelial surface due to a decrease in RBC mass, leading to impaired primary hemostasis and bleeding. Biologically, anemia reduces the mass of RBCs in the central column of flowing blood through a vessel resulting in fewer platelets coming into contact with the endothelial surface at the periphery of the flowing blood column. Thus, anemia results in impaired primary hemostasis. Von Willebrand factor (vWF) is another component of primary hemostasis and vWF deficiency, especially a deficiency of the highest vWF multimers, can also manifest with bleeding when concomitant anemia occurs. Clinically, patients at greatest risk for anemia-induced bleeding include patients with hematological malignancies in whom anemia and thrombocytopenia occur as a result of the underlying disease or the myelotoxic effects of treatment; patients with renal insufficiency with uremic thrombocytopathy and hypoproliferative anemia; and patients with inherited or acquired bleeding disorders affecting primary hemostasis (eg, Bernard-Soulier syndrome, von Willebrand disease) with chronic blood loss and iron deficiency anemia. Underlying abnormalities of any components of primary hemostasis plus concomitant anemia may result in major bleeding disorders; therefore, correction of remediable abnormalities-most notably, correction of the anemia- would be expected to have important clinical benefit. In this review we discuss how the correction of the anemia may lead to improvement of bleeding outcomes in patients with a primary hemostatic defect, supported by evidence from animal models, clinical trials and clinical experience.

Advances in gene therapy for hematologic disease and considerations for transfusion medicine

As the list of regulatory agency-approved gene therapies grows, these products are now in the therapeutic spotlight with the potential to cure or dramatically alleviate several benign and malignant hematologic diseases. The mechanisms for gene manipulation are diverse, and include the use of a variety of cell sources and both viral vector- and nuclease-based targeted approaches. Gene editing has also reached the realm of blood component therapy and testing, where cultured products are being developed to improve transfusion support for individuals with rare blood types. In this review, we summarize the milestones in the development of gene therapies for hematologic diseases, mechanisms for gene manipulation, and implications for transfusion medicine and blood centers as these therapies continue to advance and grow.