Transfusion of 7‐day‐old amotosalen photochemically treated buffy‐coat platelets to patients with thrombocytopenia: a pilot study

Abstract

Although this pilot study of a limited number of patients failed to show noninferiority within the specified noninferiority margin, 7-day-old PCT PLTs showed acceptable efficacy and safety for support of thrombocytopenia. The results, however, warrant evaluation in a larger trial of 7-day-old PCT PLTs.

In vitro evaluation of metabolic changes and residual platelet responsiveness in photochemical treated and gamma‐irradiated single‐donor platelet concentrates during long‐term storage

“…Patients receiving PCT PCs have previously shown reduced corrected count increments and transfusion interval combined with higher total number of transfusions. [7][8][9]52,77 These clinical observations correspond to our in vitro observations of reduced PLT content, higher levels of PLT activation, and higher rates of PLT destruction after PCT. Our observations emphasize the need of randomized clinical studies of PCT PCs stored for more than 5 days, including both conventional and PCT PCs.…”

A multi‐centre study of therapeutic efficacy and safety of platelet components treated with amotosalen and ultraviolet A pathogen inactivation stored for 6 or 7 d prior to transfusion

“…A previous pilot study with a randomized controlled crossover design, comparing A‐PC to C‐PC, both stored for 7 d, failed to reject inferiority within the specified margin (an absolute difference in 1‐h CCI of 2100), suggesting that 7‐d‐old A‐PC may be inferior (Simonsen et al , 2006). In that study, the upper bound of the one‐sided 95% confidence interval for the mean difference of 1‐h CCI was 2400.…”

Meta‐analysis of the studies of bleeding complications of platelets pathogen‐reduced with the Intercept system

“…RCTs reported through 30 June 2010 and allocating patients to receive routine platelet transfusions with either platelets pathogen‐reduced with the Intercept system or standard unmanipulated platelets were eligible for inclusion in the meta‐analysis. The methods used for retrieval of studies from the literature, and the exclusion of the RCTs that had used a crossover design [19, 20], were described previously [12]. Contrary to the approach used in the previous report [12], the RCT of Lozano et al.…”