The results of our study support the need for the continued use of prophylaxis with platelet transfusion and show the benefit of such prophylaxis for reducing bleeding, as compared with no prophylaxis. A significant number of patients had bleeding despite prophylaxis. (Funded by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Committee and the Australian Red Cross Blood Service; TOPPS Controlled-Trials.com number, ISRCTN08758735.).

NHS Blood and Transplant Research and Development.

Summary:relapse rates than those achieved with autologous transplants. 4,5 The concept of a graft-versus-lymphoma effect, however, remains unproven, because of the inclusion of Donor lymphocyte infusions, by virtue of a graft-versustumor effect, have been shown to induce remissions in heterogeneous patient populations in lymphoma studies and a high treatment-related mortality rate. leukemia that recurs after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Similar effects have been postulated to Discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy or donor lymphocyte infusions have been successfully used to induce contribute to the decreased recurrence rate observed after allogeneic transplantation in non-Hodgkin's lymremissions in patients in whom disease has recurred after allogeneic transplantation for chronic or acute myelogenous phoma. This lower recurrence rate may be due to a variety of other mechanisms. We aimed to evaluate the role leukemia. 6 Similar observations have been reported for patients with multiple myeloma. 7 We have used immunoof graft-versus-lymphoma effects in patients in whom lymphomas recur after allogeneic transplantation. At logic manipulations in several patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in whom disease recurred after allogeneic the time of recurrence, immunosuppressive therapy was withheld. Patients with non-responding disease received transplantation; complete or partial responses have been observed in four of nine patients. an infusion of donor lymphocytes. Patients were observed for response and graft-versus-host disease.

Increasingly, emergency and ENT departments are being presented with epistaxis in patients taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication. A better understanding of such medication and its effects may enable more effective management of these patients.

ObjectivesData on costs associated with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) are scarce. We provide estimates of UK healthcare costs, indirect costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients presenting to hospital with AUGIB.SettingSix UK university hospitals with >20 AUGIB admissions per month, >400 adult beds, 24 h endoscopy, and on-site access to intensive care and surgery.Participants936 patients aged ≥18 years, admitted with AUGIB, and enrolled between August 2012 and March 2013 in the TRIGGER trial of AUGIB comparing restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds.Primary and secondary outcome measuresHealthcare resource use during hospitalisation and postdischarge up to 28  days, unpaid informal care, time away from paid employment and HRQoL using the EuroQol EQ-5D at 28  days were measured prospectively. National unit costs were used to value resource use. Initial in-hospital treatment costs were upscaled to a UK level.ResultsMean initial in-hospital costs were £2458 (SE=£216) per patient. Inpatient bed days, endoscopy and RBC transfusions were key cost drivers. Postdischarge healthcare costs were £391 (£44) per patient. One-third of patients received unpaid informal care and the quarter in paid employment required time away from work. Mean HRQoL for survivors was 0.74. Annual initial inhospital treatment cost for all AUGIB cases in the UK was estimated to be £155.5 million, with exploratory analyses of the incremental costs of treating hospitalised patients developing AUGIB generating figures of between £143 million and £168 million.ConclusionsAUGIB is a large burden for UK hospitals with inpatient stay, endoscopy and RBC transfusions as the main cost drivers. It is anticipated that this work will enable quantification of the impact of cost reduction strategies in AUGIB and will inform economic analyses of novel or existing interventions for AUGIB.Trial registration numberISRCTN85757829 and NCT02105532.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is the commonest reason for hospitalization with hemorrhage in the UK and the leading indication for transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs). Observational studies suggest an association between more liberal RBC transfusion and adverse patient outcomes, and a recent randomised trial reported increased further bleeding and mortality with a liberal transfusion policy. TRIGGER (Transfusion in Gastrointestinal Bleeding) is a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial which aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of implementing a restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion policy in adult patients admitted with AUGIB. The trial will take place in 6 UK hospitals, and each centre will be randomly allocated to a transfusion policy. Clinicians throughout each hospital will manage all eligible patients according to the transfusion policy for the 6-month trial recruitment period. In the restrictive centers, patients become eligible for RBC transfusion when their hemoglobin is < 8 g/dL. In the liberal centers patients become eligible for transfusion once their hemoglobin is < 10 g/dL. All clinicians will have the discretion to transfuse outside of the policy but will be asked to document the reasons for doing so. Feasibility outcome measures include protocol adherence, recruitment rate, and evidence of selection bias. Clinical outcome measures include further bleeding, mortality, thromboembolic events, and infections. Quality of life will be measured using the EuroQol EQ-5D at day 28, and the costs associated with hospitalization for AUGIB in the UK will be estimated. Consent will be sought from participants or their representatives according to patient capacity for use of routine hospital data and day 28 follow up. The study has ethical approval for conduct in England and Scotland. Results will be analysed according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan and disseminated in peer reviewed publications to relevant stakeholders. The results of this study will inform the feasibility and design of a phase III randomized trial.

1 Background The effectiveness of prophylactic platelets (plts) to prevent bleeding in patients with hematological malignancies remains unclear. The aim of this trial was to test the hypothesis that a policy of no-prophylactic plt transfusions (PltTx) is as effective and safe as a policy of prophylactic PltTx. Methods TOPPS was a randomized, parallel group, open-label, non-inferiority trial that recruited from 14 UK and Australian hospitals (ISRCTN08758735). The primary outcome was proportion of patients with a clinically significant bleed, defined as ≥WHO Grade 2, up to 30 days (d) from randomization. Non-inferiority margin was defined as a 15% difference in proportion of patients experiencing the primary outcome. Adult patients were eligible if they had a hematological malignancy, were receiving chemotherapy or stem cell transplant (SCT) and expected to be thrombocytopenic for at least 5 days. Patients were randomized by centralized computer system to receive either prophylactic PltTx if plt count was <10×109/L, or no prophylaxis. Allocated treatment policy applied for 30d from randomization, irrespective of in- or out-patient status. In both arms PltTx were given therapeutically (documented signs or symptoms of bleeding) or prior to invasive procedures or at physician discretion. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results Recruitment began August 2006 and closed in August 2011. Of 1093 patients screened, 600 patients were randomized (301 no-prophylaxis, 299 prophylaxis). Baseline characteristics were well matched. 70% patients in both arms received autologous SCT (autoSCT). The majority of patients in both arms had complete bleeding data recorded [median 30d (IQR 29 to 30) no-prophylaxis arm, median 30d (IQR 30 to 30) prophylaxis arm]. Two patients (1 in each arm) withdrew prior to any data collection. Most PltTx in both arms were given according to protocol (no-prophylaxis 450/504 (89%) vs prophylaxis 810/894 (91%). Fewer patients in the no-prophylaxis group received PltTx (176/300, 59%) vs. prophylaxis group (266/298, 89%) [OR 0.14 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.23]; and they also received fewer PltTx overall [no-prophylaxis mean 1.7 PltTx (SD 2.6) vs. prophylaxis mean 3.0 PltTxs (SD 3.2); rate ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.74]. Average number of days with plt count <10 and <20×109/L was significantly longer in no-prophylaxis arm. A WHO grade 2–4 bleed occurred in 151/300 patients (50%) in the no-prophylaxis group compared to 128/298 (43%) in the prophylaxis group (adjusted difference in proportions 8.4%, 90% CI 1.7 to 15.2%: p-value for non-inferiority 0.06). This study therefore did not prove its main aim, that a no-prophylaxis policy is non-inferior to prophylaxis. The time to the first grade 2–4 bleed was significantly shorter in the no-prophylaxis group (Fig. 1). Patients in the no-prophylaxis group averaged 1.7d (SD 2.9) with a WHO grade 2–4 bleed during follow-up, vs. 1.2d (SD 2.0) in the prophylactic group [rate ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.03]. Whilst there were more grade 3–4 bleeds in the no-prophylaxis group (6/300) compared to the prophylaxis group (1/298) this did not reach statistical significance (OR 6.05, 95% CI 0.73 to 279.72, p = 0.13). Only 2 of these 7 patients had a plt count <10×109/L at onset of grade 3–4 bleeding (median plt count 16, range 3–42 x109/L); both patients were receiving induction chemotherapy for AML. Pre-defined subgroup analysis between autoSCT vs other treatments for the primary outcome found a significant interaction (p-value 0.04). In the autoSCT group, WHO grade 2–4 bleed grade occurred in 99/210 patients (47%) in the no-prophylaxis group vs 95/210 (45%) in the prophylaxis group (difference in proportions 2.3%, 90% CI −5.7 to 10.3%). For all patients, there was no significant difference between treatment groups in period of thrombocytopenia, number of days in hospital, or number of SAEsexperienced. Discussion This multicenter study has not shown that a no-prophylaxis PltTx policy is non-inferior to prophylaxis. Patients in the no-prophylaxis group had more days with a WHO grade 2 or above bleed, and a shorter time to first bleed. Further analysis is needed to determine whether these findings apply to all subgroups of patients. Despite a role for prophylactic platelet transfusions, rates of bleeding in patients remain high. Funding NHS Blood and Transplant & Australian Red Cross Blood Service Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Patient self-assessment can help to support comprehensive daily prospective monitoring of bleeding, specifically facilitating data collection following hospital discharge. The discrepancies between self-assessment and medical examination highlight the need to develop a validated international assessment tool. The association among platelet count, risk of bleeding and role of prophylactic platelet transfusions needs further evaluation in larger prospective trials.