Platelet Recruitment during Multiple Donor Platelet Apheresis Differs between Cell Separators

SUMMARY: BACKGROUND: Recruitment of platelets (PLT) during donor PLT apheresis may facilitate the harvest of multiple units within a single donation. METHODS: We compared two PLT apheresis procedures (Amicus and Trima Accel) in a prospective, randomized, paired cross-over study in 60 donors. The 120 donations were compared for depletion of circulating PLT in the donors, PLT yields and PLT recruitment. A recruitment was defined as ratio of total PLT yield and donor PLT depletion > 1. RESULTS: Despite comparable differences of pre- and post-apheresis PLT counts (87 × 10(9)/l in Trima Accel vs. 92 × 10(9)/l in Amicus, p = 0.383), PLT yields were higher with Trima Accel (7.48 × 10(11) vs. 6.06 × 10(11), p < 0.001), corresponding to a higher PLT recruitment (1.90 vs. 1.42, p < 0.001). We observed a different increase of WBC counts after aphereses, which was more pronounced with Trima Accel than with Amicus (1.30 × 10(9)/l vs. 0.46 × 10(9)/l, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both procedures induced PLT recruitment. This was higher in Trima Accel, contributing to a higher yield in spite of a comparable depletion of circulating PLT in the donors. This recruitment facilitates the harvest of multiple units within a single donation and seems to be influenced by the procedure utilized. The different increases of circulating donor white blood cells after donation need further investigation.

Prospective, paired crossover comparison of multiple, single-needle plateletpheresis procedures with the Amicus and Trima Accel cell separators

BACKGROUND: The Baxter Amicus Version 2.51 (A) and the Gambro BCT Trima Accel Version 5.0 (T) cell separators may produce multiple platelet (PLT) concentrates within a single donation. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The single-needle multiple plateletpheresis procedures of the two devices were compared in a prospective, randomized, paired crossover study in 60 donors. The 120 donations were compared for donor comfort, collection efficiency, residual white blood cell (WBC) count, and (in selected patients) corrected count increment (CCI). RESULTS: The mean PLT yield and the resultant mean number of units per donation were significantly lower for A (6.06 x 10(11) vs. 7.48 x 10(11) and 2.57 vs. 3.19, respectively, both p < 0.001), in spite of a longer apheresis duration (89 min vs. 79 min; p < 0.001). This resulted in a higher collection rate of T (5.68 x 10(11) PLTs/hr vs. 4.10 x 10(11) PLTs/hr, p < 0.001). Residual WBC count of every unit was fewer than 5 x 10(6), but significantly fewer A-PLT donations contained more than 10(5) WBCs per unit (1 vs. 9, p = 0.008). Although the ACD-A consumption was slightly higher for A (489 mL vs. 469 mL, p = 0.04), a trend to a higher frequency of side effects was found for T (42.4% vs. 23.7%, p = 0.06). The 1-hour CCIs of 33 transfused A-PLT units were comparable with those of 43 T-PLT units (11.8 vs. 13.9, p = 0.480). CONCLUSIONS: Both cell separators showed safe collections of up to 4 PLT units per donation with adequate CCI. T produced a higher PLT yield despite shorter apheresis duration, but with slightly higher residual WBC counts and a trend to a higher side-effect frequency.

Effects of high-yield thrombocytapheresis on the quality of platelet products

BACKGROUND: The steadily increasing demands for single-donor apheresis platelet (PLT) concentrates (APCs) are a challenge to the PLT supply system. Therefore, efforts to improve plateletpheresis yield, allowing apheresis products to be split into 2 or more units, are valuable strategies. No data to demonstrate in vivo transfusion efficacy of these high-yield split-APCs are currently available, however. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The transfusion efficacy of APCs produced by two apheresis methods involving different harvest and storing procedures and varying PLT yields was investigated. Efficacy measures were the 1-hour percent PLT recovery (PPR(1h)) and the 1-hour corrected count increment (CCI(1h)). In total, 400 APCs, produced with either an Amicus device (Baxter) and stored in PLT additive solution (T-Sol; Amicus method [AM], n = 107) or a Trima device (Gambro) and stored in plasma (Trima method [TM], n = 293), were transfused to 55 children (31 girls; median age, 9.5 years; range, 0.2-18.5 years) with thrombocytopenia due to chemotherapy or aplastic anemia (median, 4 APCs per child; range, 1-68). RESULTS: Transfusion efficacy was significantly lower for AM-APCs than for TM-APCs (median PPR(1h), 17 and 33%; median CCI(1h), 7.9 and 15.6, respectively; p < 0.001). Reduced transfusion efficacy correlated in a yield-dependent manner with high apheresis PLT yields (>/=6 x 10(11)) for AM-APCs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although in vitro validation of AM- and TM-APCs has been performed, only by evaluating transfusion efficacy in vivo did the AM turn out to be not suitable for high-yield thrombocytapheresis. This study recommends the implementation of in vivo transfusion efficacy studies for high-yield APC apheresis donations.

Blood donor screening: how to decrease the risk of transfusion-transmitted hepatitis B virus?

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: The risk of transfusion-transmitted HBV remains significant in Switzerland, where routine screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) in blood donations relies solely on serological hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) testing. This study was designed to determine the prevalence of anti-hepatitis B core (anti-HBc) and HBV nucleic acid testing (NAT) positive donations in two different Swiss donor populations, to help in deciding whether supplemental testing may bring additional safety to blood products. METHODS: In a first population of donors, 18143 consecutive donations were screened initially for HBsAg, anti-HBc (with one EIA assay) and with HBV NAT in minipools of 24 donations. The screening repeatedly reactive anti-HBc donations were then "confirmed" with two supplemental anti-HBc assays, an anti-hepatitis B surface assay (anti-HBs) and with single donation HBV NAT. In a second population of donors, 4186 consecutive donations were screened initially with two different anti-HBc assays in addition to the mandatory HBsAg screening test. The screening repeatedly reactive donations with at least one anti-HBc assay were tested for anti-HBs. RESULTS: In the first subset of 18143 donations, 17593 (97.0%) were negative for HBsAg, anti-HBc and HBV NAT in minipools. 549 (3.0%) were HBsAg and HBV NAT negative, but repeatedly reactive for anti-HBc. Of these 549 donations, 287 could not be "confirmed" with two additional anti-HBc assays and were negative with an anti-HBs assay, as well as with single donation HBV NAT. Only 211 (1.2% of the total screened donations) were "confirmed" positive with at least one of two supplemental anti-HBc assays. One repeatedly reactive HBsAg donation, from a first-time donor, was confirmed positive for HBsAg and anti-HBc, as well as with single donation HBV NAT. In the second subset of 4186 donations, 4014 (95.9%) were screened negative for HBsAg and for anti-HBc, tested with two independent anti-HBc assays. 172 donations (4.1%) were HBsAg negative but repeatedly reactive with at least one of the two anti-HBc assays. Of these 172 samples, 86 were reactive with the first anti-HBc assay only, 13 were reactive with the second anti-HBc assay only and 73 (1.7% of the total screened donations) were "confirmed" positive with both anti-HBc assays. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of anti-HBc "confirmed" positive donations in the two Swiss blood donor populations studied was low (<2%) and we found only one HBV NAT positive (HBsAg positive) donation among more than 18000. Concerning blood product safety, an increase in the deferral rate of less than 2% of anti-HBc positive, potentially infectious donors, would in our opinion make routine anti-HBc testing of blood donations cost-effective. There is however still a need for more specific assays to avoid an unacceptably high deferral rate of "false" positive donors. In contrast, the introduction of HBV NAT in minipools gives minimal benefit due to the inadequate sensitivity of the assay. It remains to evaluate more extensively the value of individual donation NAT, alone or in addition to anti-HBc, as supplemental testing in the context of several Swiss blood donor populations.

A Research Roadmap for Complementary and Alternative Medicine – What We Need to Know by 2020

Background: The CAMbrella coordination action was funded within the Framework Programme 7. Its aim is to provide a research roadmap for clinical and epidemiological research for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is appropriate for the health needs of European citizens and acceptable to their national research institutes and healthcare providers in both public and private sectors. One major issue in the European research agenda is the demographic change and its impact on health care. Our vision for 2020 is that there is an evidence base that enables European citizens to make informed decisions about CAM, both positive and negative. This roadmap proposes a strategic research agenda for the field of CAM designed to address future European health care challenges. This roadmap is based on the results of CAMbrella’s several work packages, literature reviews and expert discussions including a consensus meeting. Methods: We first conducted a systematic literature review on key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in CAM to identify the general concepts, methods and the strengths and weaknesses of current CAM research. These findings were discussed in a workshop (Castellaro, Italy, September 7–9th 2011) with international CAM experts and strategic and methodological recommendations were defined in order to improve the rigor and relevance of CAM research. These recommendations provide the basis for the research roadmap, which was subsequently discussed in a consensus conference (Järna, Sweden, May 9–11th 2012) with all CAMbrella members and the CAMbrella advisory board. The roadmap was revised after this discussion in CAMbrella Work Package (WP) 7 and finally approved by CAMbrella’s scientific steering committee on September 26th 2012. Results: Our main findings show that CAM is very heterogenous in terms of definitions and legal regulations between the European countries. In addition, citizens’ needs and attitudes towards CAM as well as the use and provision of CAM differ significantly between countries. In terms of research methodology, there was consensus that CAM researchers should make use of all the commonly accepted scientific research methods and employ those with utmost diligence combined in a mixed methods framework. Conclusions: We propose 6 core areas of research that should be investigated to achieve a robust knowledge base and to allow stakeholders to make informed decisions. These are: Research into the prevalence of CAM in Europe: Reviews show that we do not know enough about the circumstances in which CAM is used by Europeans. To enable a common European strategic approach, a clear picture of current use is of the utmost importance. Research into differences regarding citizens’ attitudes and needs towards CAM: Citizens are the driver for CAM utilization. Their needs and views on CAM are a key priority, and their interests must be investigated and addressed in future CAM research. Research into safety of CAM: Safety is a key issue for European citizens. CAM is considered safe, but reliable data is scarce although urgently needed in order to assess the risk and cost-benefit ratio of CAM. Research into the comparative effectiveness of CAM: Everybody needs to know in what situation CAM is a reasonable choice. Therefore, we recommend a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of the overall effectiveness of CAM as an additional or alternative treatment strategy in real-world settings. Research into effects of context and meaning: The impact of effects of context and meaning on the outcome of CAM treatments must be investigated; it is likely that they are significant. Research into different models of CAM health care integration: There are different models of CAM being integrated into conventional medicine throughout Europe, each with their respective strengths and limitations. These models should be described and concurrently evaluated; innovative models of CAM provision in health care systems should be one focus for CAM research. We also propose a methodological framework for CAM research. We consider that a framework of mixed methodological approaches is likely to yield the most useful information. In this model, all available research strategies including comparative effectiveness research utilising quantitative and qualitative methods should be considered to enable us to secure the greatest density of knowledge possible. Stakeholders, such as citizens, patients and providers, should be involved in every stage of developing the specific and relevant research questions, study design and the assurance of real-world relevance for the research. Furthermore, structural and sufficient financial support for research into CAM is needed to strengthen CAM research capacity if we wish to understand why it remains so popular within the EU. In order to consider employing CAM as part of the solution to the health care, health creation and self-care challenges we face by 2020, it is vital to obtain a robust picture of CAM use and reliable information about its cost, safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. We need to consider the availability, accessibility and affordability of CAM. We need to engage in research excellence and utilise comparative effectiveness approaches and mixed methods to obtain this data. Our recommendations are both strategic and methodological. They are presented for the consideration of researchers and funders while being designed to answer the important and implicit questions posed by EU citizens currently using CAM in apparently increasing numbers. We propose that the EU actively supports an EUwide strategic approach that facilitates the development of CAM research. This could be achieved in the first instance through funding a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to foster systematic communication between EU governments, public, charitable and industry funders as well as researchers, citizens and other stakeholders. The aim of this office would be to coordinate research strategy developments and research funding opportunities, as well as to document and disseminate international research activities in this field. With the aim to develop sustainability as second step, a European Centre for CAM should be established that takes over the monitoring and further development of a coordinated research strategy for CAM, as well as it should have funds that can be awarded to foster high quality and robust independent research with a focus on citizens health needs and pan-European collaboration. We wish to establish a solid funding for CAM research to adequately inform health care and health creation decision-making throughout the EU. This centre would ensure that our vision of a common, strategic and scientifically rigorous approach to CAM research becomes our legacy and Europe’s reality. We are confident that our recommendations will serve these essential goals for EU citizens.

High prevalence but limited evidence in complementary and alternative medicine: guidelines for future research

The use of complementary and alternative Medicine (CAM) has increased over the past two decades in Europe. Nonetheless, research investigating the evidence to support its use remains limited. The CAMbrella project funded by the European Commission aimed to develop a strategic research agenda starting by systematically evaluating the state of CAM in the EU. CAMbrella involved 9 work packages covering issues such as the definition of CAM; its legal status, provision and use in the EU; and a synthesis of international research perspectives. Based on the work package reports, we developed a strategic and methodologically robust research roadmap based on expert workshops, a systematic Delphi-based process and a final consensus conference. The CAMbrella project suggests six core areas for research to examine the potential contribution of CAM to the health care challenges faced by the EU. These areas include evaluating the prevalence of CAM use in Europe; the EU cititzens’ needs and attitudes regarding CAM; the safety of CAM; the comparative effectiveness of CAM; the effects of meaning and context on CAM outcomes; and different models for integrating CAM into existing health care systems. CAM research should use methods generally accepted in the evaluation of health services, including comparative effectiveness studies and mixed-methods designs. A research strategy is urgently needed, ideally led by a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to fostering systematic communication between EU governments, the public, charitable and industry funders, researchers and other stakeholders. A European Centre for CAM should also be established to monitor and further a coordinated research strategy with sufficient funds to commission and promote high quality, independent research focusing on the public’s health needs and pan-European collaboration. There is a disparity between highly prevalent use of CAM in Europe and solid knowledge about it. A strategic approach on CAM research should be established to investigate the identified gaps of knowledge and to address upcoming health care challenges.

Gamma-hydroxybutyrate enhances mood and prosocial behavior without affecting plasma oxytocin and testosterone.

Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is a GHB-/GABAB-receptor agonist. Reports from GHB abusers indicate euphoric, prosocial, and empathogenic effects of the drug. We measured the effects of GHB on mood, prosocial behavior, social and non-social cognition and assessed potential underlying neuroendocrine mechanisms. GHB (20mg/kg) was tested in 16 healthy males, using a randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over design. Subjective effects on mood were assessed by visual-analogue-scales and the GHB-Specific-Questionnaire. Prosocial behavior was examined by the Charity Donation Task, the Social Value Orientation test, and the Reciprocity Task. Reaction time, memory, empathy, and theory-of-mind were also tested. Blood plasma levels of GHB, oxytocin, testosterone, progesterone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), cortisol, aldosterone, and adrenocorticotropic-hormone (ACTH) were determined. GHB showed stimulating and sedating effects, and elicited euphoria, disinhibition, and enhanced vitality. In participants with low prosociality, the drug increased donations and prosocial money distributions. In contrast, social cognitive abilities such as emotion recognition, empathy, and theory-of-mind, and basal cognitive functions were not affected. GHB increased plasma progesterone, while oxytocin and testosterone, cortisol, aldosterone, DHEA, and ACTH levels remained unaffected. GHB has mood-enhancing and prosocial effects without affecting social hormones such as oxytocin and testosterone. These data suggest a potential involvement of GHB-/GABAB-receptors and progesterone in mood and prosocial behavior.

A novel, bedside technique to rapidly identify umbilical cord blood units with high total nucleated cell numbers

BACKGROUND With increasing demand for umbilical cord blood units (CBUs) with total nucleated cell (TNC) counts of more than 150 × 10(7) , preshipping assessment is mandatory. Umbilical cord blood processing requires aseptic techniques and laboratories with specific air quality and cleanliness. Our aim was to establish a fast and efficient method for determining TNC counts at the obstetric ward without exposing the CBU to the environment. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Data from a total of 151 cord blood donations at a single procurement site were included in this prospective study. We measured TNC counts in cord blood aliquots taken from the umbilical cord (TNCCord ), from placenta (TNCPlac ), and from a tubing segment of the sterile collection system (TNCTS ). TNC counts were compared to reference TNC counts in the CBU which were ascertained at the cord blood bank (TNCCBU ). RESULTS TNCTS counts (173 ± 33 × 10(7) cells; calculated for 1 unit) correlated fully with the TNCCBU reference counts (166 ± 33 × 10(7) cells, Pearson's r = 0.97, p < 0.0001). In contrast, TNCCord and TNCPlac counts were more disparate from the reference (r = 0.92 and r = 0.87, respectively). CONCLUSIONS A novel method of measuring TNC counts in tubing segments from the sterile cord blood collection system allows rapid and correct identification of CBUs with high cell numbers at the obstetric ward without exposing cells to the environment. This approach may contribute to cost efficacy as only CBUs with satisfactory TNC counts need to be shipped to the cord blood bank.