SummaryBackgroundInfluenza causes significant morbidity and mortality despite currently available treatments. Anecdotal reports suggest plasma with high antibody titers towards influenza may be of benefit in the treatment of severe influenza.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase 2 trial at 29 academic medical centers in the United States to assess the safety and efficacy of anti-influenza plasma with hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibody titers of ≥ 1:80 to the infecting strain. Hospitalized children and adults (including pregnant women) with severe influenza A or B (defined as hypoxia or tachypnea) were randomly assigned to receive either 2 units (or pediatric equivalent) of anti-influenza plasma plus standard care (P+S), versus standard care alone (S), and were followed for 28 days. The primary endpoint was time to normalization of patients’ respiratory status (respiratory rate of ≤ 20 for adults or age defined thresholds of 20–38 for children), and a room air saturation of oxygen ≥ 93%. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01052480FindingsBetween January 13, 2011 and March 2, 2015, 113 participants were screened, and 98 were randomized. Of the participants with confirmed influenza, 28 of 42 (67%) of P+S participants normalized their respiratory status by Day 28, as compared to 24 of 45 (53%) of S participants (p=0·069). The estimated hazard ratio comparing P+S to S was 1·71 (95% CI: 0·96 to 3·06). Six participants died, 1 (2%) and 5 (10%) from the P+S and S arms respectively (p=0·093). P+S participants had non-significant reductions in days in hospital (median 6 vs. 11 days, p=0·13) and days on mechanical ventilation (median 0 vs. 3 days, p=0·14), and significantly improved clinical status at Day 7 (p=0·020). Fewer P+S participants experienced SAEs compared to S recipients (20% vs. 38%, p= 0·041), the most frequent of which were acute respiratory distress syndrome (1 [2%] vs 2 [4%]) and stroke (1 [2%] vs 2 [4%]).InterpretationResults from this Phase II randomized trial of immune plasma for the treatment of severe influenza provides support for a possible benefit of immunotherapy across the primary and secondary endpoints. A Phase III randomized trial is now underway to further evaluate this intervention.
Due to their immunosuppressive properties, mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) have been evaluated for the treatment of immunological diseases. However, the animal-derived growth supplements utilized for MSC manufacturing may lead to clinical complications. Characterization of alternative media formulations is imperative for MSC therapeutic application. Human BMMSC and AdMSC were expanded in media supplemented with either human platelet lysates (HPL), serum-free media/xeno-free FDA-approved culture medium (SFM/XF), or fetal bovine serum (FBS) and the effects on their properties were investigated. The immunophenotype of resting and IFN-γ primed BMMSC and AdMSC remained unaltered in all media. Both HPL and SFM/XF increased the proliferation of BMMSC and AdMSC. Expansion of BMMSC and AdMSC in HPL increased their differentiation, compared to SFM/XF and FBS. Resting BMMSC and AdMSC, expanded in FBS or SFM/XF, demonstrated potent immunosuppressive properties in both non-primed and IFN-γ primed conditions, whereas HPL-expanded MSC exhibited diminished immunosuppressive properties. Finally, IFN-γ primed BMMSC and AdMSC expanded in SFM/XF and HPL expressed attenuated levels of IDO-1 compared to FBS. Herein, we provide strong evidence supporting the use of the FDA-approved SFM/XF medium, in contrast to the HPL medium, for the expansion of MSC towards therapeutic applications.
Trauma was not the leading cause of UMT. Increasing RBC requirements were significantly associated with decreasing survival. However, survival was more strongly associated with diagnostic category than total RBCs transfused, with highest survival rates in solid organ transplant surgery.
Although overall altruism and inconvenience were the major motivating factor and deterrent for blood, some demographic differences existed in donor attitude toward incentive programs and preference for the method of contact used by blood centers for recruitment purposes.
Apheresis collections performed by TA instruments are safe with a low incidence of significant AEs. Various types of AEs have different predisposing factors. Apheresis may be a safer option for donors with risk factors for PS reactions associated with whole blood collections, such as younger age, female sex, and small TBV.
Summary The reported frequency of D alloimmunization in D- recipients after transfusion of D+ platelets varies. This study was designed to determine the frequency of D alloimmunization, previously reported to be an average of 5%±2%. A primary anti-D immune response was defined as the detection of anti-D ≥28 days following the first D+ platelet transfusion. Data were collected on 485 D- recipients of D+ platelets in 11 centres between 2010-2012. Their median age was 60 (range 2-100) years. Diagnoses included: haematological (203/485, 42%), oncological (64/485, 13%) and other diseases (218/485, 45%). Only 7/485 (1.44%; 95%CI 0.58-2.97%) recipients had a primary anti-D response after a median serological follow-up of 77 days (range: 28-2111). There were no statistically significant differences between the primary anti-D formers and the other patients, in terms of gender, age, receipt of immunosuppressive therapy, proportion of patients with haematological/oncological diseases, transfusion of whole blood-derived or apheresis platelets or both, and total number of transfused platelet products. This is the largest study with the longest follow-up of D alloimmunization following D+ platelet transfusion. The low frequency of D alloimmunization should be considered when deciding whether to administer Rh Immune Globulin to D- males and D- females without childbearing potential after transfusion of D+ platelets.
BACKGROUND Wrong blood in tube (WBIT) errors are a preventable cause of ABO‐mismatched RBC transfusions. Electronic patient identification systems (e.g., scanning a patient's wristband barcode before pretransfusion sample collection) are thought to reduce WBIT errors, but the effectiveness of these systems is unclear. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Part 1: Using retrospective data, we compared pretransfusion sample WBIT rates at hospitals using manual patient identification (n = 16 sites; >1.6 million samples) with WBIT rates at hospitals using electronic patient identification for some or all sample collections (n = 4 sites; >0.5 million samples). Also, we compared WBIT rates after implementation of electronic patient identification with preimplementation WBIT rates. Causes and frequencies of WBIT errors were evaluated at each site. Part 2: Transfusion service laboratories (n = 18) prospectively typed mislabeled (rejected) samples (n = 2844) to determine WBIT rates among samples with minor labeling errors. RESULTS Part 1: The overall unadjusted WBIT rate at sites using manual patient identification was 1:10,110 versus 1:35,806 for sites using electronic identification (p < 0.0001). Correcting for repeat samples and silent WBIT errors yielded overall adjusted WBIT rates of 1:3046 for sites using manual identification and 1:14,606 for sites using electronic identification (p < 0.0001), with wide variation among individual sites. Part 2: The unadjusted WBIT rate among mislabeled (rejected) samples was 1:71 (adjusted WBIT rate, 1:28). CONCLUSION In this study, using electronic patient identification at the time of pretransfusion sample collection was associated with approximately fivefold fewer WBIT errors compared with using manual patient identification. WBIT rates were high among mislabeled (rejected) samples, confirming that rejecting samples with even minor labeling errors helps mitigate the risk of ABO‐incompatible transfusions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.