Washing transplants with Sepax 2 reduces the incidence of side effects associated with autologous transplantation and increases patients' comfort

Sepax-2 cell processing device: a study assessing reproducibility of concentrating thawed hematopoietic progenitor cells

Background

Autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) transplantation is currently the standard of care for a fraction of patients with newly diagnosed myelomas and relapsed or refractory lymphomas. After high-dose chemotherapy, cryopreserved HPC are either infused directly after bedside thawing or washed and concentrated before infusion. We previously reported on the comparability of washing/concentrating HPC post-thaw vs. infusion without manipulation in terms of hematopoietic engraftment, yet settled for the prior favoring cell debris and DMSO removal. For almost two decades, automation of this critical step of washing/concentrating cells has been feasible. As part of continuous process verification, we aim to evaluate reproducibility of this procedure by assessing intra-batch and inter-batch variability upon concentration of thawed HPC products using the Sepax 2 S-100 cell separation system.

Methods

Autologous HPC collected from the same patient were thawed and washed either in two batches processed within a 3-4 h interval and immediately infused on the same day (intra-batch, n = 45), or in two batches on different days (inter-batch, n = 49) for those patients requiring 2 or more high-dose chemotherapy cycles. Quality attributes assessed were CD34+ cell recovery, viability and CD45+ viability; CFU assay was only performed for allogeneic grafts.

Results

Intra-batch and inter-batch median CD34+ cell recovery was comparable (75% vs. 73% and 77% vs. 77%, respectively). Similarly, intra-batch and inter-batch median CD45+ cell viability was comparable (79% vs. 80% and 79% vs. 78%, respectively). Bland-Altman analysis describing agreement between batches per patient revealed a bias close to 0%. Additionally, lower HPC recoveries noted in batch 1 were noted as well in batch 2, regardless of the CD34+ cell dose before cryopreservation, both intra- and inter-batch, suggesting that the quality of the collected product plays an important role in downstream recovery. Intrinsic (high mature and immature granulocyte content) and extrinsic (delay between apheresis and cryopreservation) variables of the collected product resulted in a significantly lower CD45+ viability and CD34+ cell recovery upon thawing/washing.

Conclusions

Automated post-thaw HPC concentration provides reproducible cell recoveries and viabilities between different batches. Implications of this work go beyond HPC to concentrate cell suspension/products during manufacturing of cell and gene therapy products.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12967-022-03703-1.

Comparison of cryoprotectants in hematopoietic cell infusion-related adverse events

BACKGROUND

The standard cryoprotectant for human cellular products is dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), which is associated with hematopoietic cell infusion-related adverse events (HCI-AEs) in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation including peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation (PBSCT). DMSO is often used with hydroxyethyl starch (HES), which reduces DMSO concentration while maintaining the postthaw cell recovery. The cryoprotectant medium CP-1 (Kyokuto Pharmaceutical Industrial) is widely used in Japan. After mixture of a product with CP-1, DMSO and HES concentrations are 5% and 6%, respectively. However, the safety profile of CP-1 in association with HCI-AEs has not been investigated.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

To compare CP-1 with other cryoprotectants, we conducted a subgroup analysis of PBSCT recipients in a prospective surveillance study for HCI-AEs. Moreover, we validated the toxicity of CP-1 in 90 rats following various dose administration.

RESULTS

The PBSC products cryopreserved with CP-1 (CP-1 group) and those with other cryoprotectants, mainly 10% DMSO (non-CP-1 group), were infused into 418 and 58 recipients, respectively. The rate of ≥grade 2 HCI-AEs was higher in the CP-1 group, but that of overall or ≥grade 3 HCI-AEs was not significantly different, compared to the non-CP-1 group. Similarly, after propensity score matching, ≥grade 2 HCI-AEs were more frequent in the CP-1 group, but the ≥grade 3 HCI-AE rate did not differ significantly between the groups. No significant toxicity was detected regardless of the CP-1 dose in the 90 rats.

CONCLUSIONS

Infusion of a CP-1-containing PBSC product is feasible with the respect of HCI-AEs.