Hematology

Although there have been significant improvements in patient outcomes for some forms of pediatric cancer, progress has been painfully slow for others. An increasing understanding of pediatric cancers is highlighting the unique molecular drivers and challenging the assumption that drugs developed in adults can be applied to children and young adults. Here, we discuss game-changing therapeutic advances and a shifting view of childhood cancers.

Unique genomic background

Although pediatric cancers are rare, representing just 1% of all new cancers diagnosed annually in the United States, they are the second leading cause of death in children aged 1 to 14 years. There are many different histological tumor types under the umbrella of childhood cancers, of which the most common are leukemias, central nervous system tumors, and lymphomas (Figure 1).^1,2

A ‘magic bullet’?

Chromosomal rearrangements are common in pediatric cancers. This type of molecular abnormality can result in a fusion of 2 different genes when the chromosome breaks apart and the pieces join back together in a muddled order. If the genetic code fuses in a manner that is “readable” by the cell, then it can drive aberrant activation of one or both genes.⁷ Gene fusions often involve kinase enzymes that are essential players in cell signaling pathways regulating hallmark cancer processes, such as unchecked cell proliferation. The fusion drives the constitutive activation of the kinase and, thus, these downstream signaling pathways.

One of the first chromosomal rearrangements linked to cancer, BCR-ABL1 – more commonly known as the Philadelphia chromosome – results in aberrant activation of the ABL1 kinase. It is present in nearly all cases of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and 3% to 5% of patients with ALL, and thus became the central focus of targeted drug development. Imatinib was initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2001 for the treatment of adult patients with CML and had such a significant impact on the treatment landscape that it made the cover of Time magazine as a “magic bullet” in the war on cancer.⁸

Approval was expanded into pediatric patients in 2006 and for pediatric patients with ALL in 2013. However, as with the use of most kinase inhibitors, tumors can evolve under the selective pressure of treatment, developing additional molecular abnormalities that drive resistance.⁹

Next-generation multikinase inhibitors that more potently inhibit the BCR-ABL1 fusion protein have been developed to provide additional treatment options for patients who become resistant to imatinib. Dasatinib and nilotinib are among several drugs that have recently been approved for pediatric cancer therapy (Table 1). Both therapies were approved to treat children with Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML in the chronic phase in either the front- or second-line setting after failure of imatinib.

Other prominent gene fusions

Gene fusions involving the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) occur in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer and ALK inhibitors have provided an effective new treatment option for patients whose tumors display this abnormality.

ALK fusions are also a prominent feature of several kinds of pediatric cancers and ALK inhibitors offer promise in this setting.^7,12 An NPM-ALK fusion is found in 90% of pediatric anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) cases,¹³ whereas a variety of ALK fusions are found in up to half of patients with inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (IMT), a rare form of soft tissue sarcoma.¹⁴ ALK inhibitors are being tested in a variety of clinical trials in pediatric patients (Table 2).

CAR T cells transformative in ALL

A variety of different types of immunotherapy have been tested in patients with pediatric cancers. In general, immunotherapy has proved less effective than in adult cancers, possibly because of the lower tumor mutation burden in pediatric cancers, which means there are likely fewer cancer antigens to provoke an anti-tumor immune response.

There are notable exceptions among the disappointments, however, and most exciting is the development of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. CAR T cells fall into a category of immunotherapy known as adoptive cell therapy (ACT), in which immune cells are harvested from a patient and grown outside the body to increase their numbers before being reinfused into the patient.

In the case of CAR T-cell therapy, the cells are genetically engineered to express a CAR that endows them with tumor-targeting capabilities. To date, the development of CAR T cells has focused on the use of the CD19 antigen as a target, which is highly expressed on a variety of B-cell malignancies, including several of the most common forms of pediatric cancer. ASCO shined the spotlight on CAR T-cell therapy this year, naming it the Advance of the Year for 2018, saying that the treatment is “poised to transform childhood ALL.”¹⁹

Two CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapies – tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel – were brought to market in 2017. Only tisagenlecleucel is approved in the pediatric ALL population, however, having been awarded approval for the treatment of patients aged up to 25 years whose disease is refractory to or relapsed after receiving at least 2 prior therapies. In the pivotal trial, complete responses were observed in more than 60% of patients.²⁰ Clinical trials of both CAR T-cell therapies in pediatric ALL and non-Hodgkin lymphoma are ongoing (Table 3).

More immunotherapy approvals

The immune checkpoint inhibitors, which work by blocking inhibitory receptors on the surface of T cells, have also had recent approvals in pediatric patient populations. Pembrolizumab and nivolumab, inhibitors of the programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) protein, have both been approved for use in adult and pediatric patients (older than 12 years) with relapsed/refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (and other solid tumors in the case of pembrolizumab) that display defects in the mismatch repair pathway that fixes damaged DNA or in patients that have high levels of microsatellite instability. Both deficient mismatch repair and microsatellite instability–high can indicate a high mutation burden in a tumor, which may predict increased sensitivity to immunotherapy.²⁹

The approval in pediatric patients in both of those instances, however, was not based on data in pediatric patient populations but extrapolated from adult patients. Pembrolizumab is also approved for the treatment of adults and pediatric patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) after 3 or more previous treatments, but once again efficacy in the pediatric population was inferred from clinical trials performed in adults. Most recently, pembrolizumab was approved for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma.³⁰Ipilimumab, which targets a different T cell receptor – cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) – has been approved for the treatment of pediatric patients aged 12 years and older with metastatic melanoma. This expanded indication, following on from its approval in adult patients in 2011, was based on data from 2 trials in which objective responses were observed in 2 out of 17 patients, including 1 partial response that lasted 16 months.³¹Finally, antibody-drug conjugates (ADC), in which tumor antigen-targeting monoclonal antibodies are conjugated to cytotoxic payloads to combine the specificity of an antibody with the cell-killing potency of chemotherapy, have also generated some recent successes in pediatric cancers.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin is an ADC that targets the CD33 protein, which is highly expressed on 85%-90% of cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In 2000, it was the first ADC to be brought to market in the United States, but it was subsequently voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer in 2010 after confirmatory trials failed to show a survival benefit.

Recently, a meta-analysis of gemtuzumab ozogamicin trials suggested that the drug likely does improve long-term overall survival (OS) and reduce the risk of relapse and researchers developed an intermittent dosing schedule to help mitigate toxicity.³² This new dosing regimen received FDA approval in 2017 for the treatment of pediatric patients aged 2 years and older on the basis of 2 clinical trials.

In the MyloFrance-1 trial, 57 patients were administered 3 mg/m² gemtuzumab ozogamicin on days 1, 4, and 7 followed by cytarabine consolidation therapy and demonstrated a 26% CR rate and median recurrence-free survival of 11.6 months. In the phase 3 AML-19 trial, 237 patients received gemtuzumab ozogamicin at a dose of 6 mg/m² on day 1 and 3 mg/m² on day 8 or best supportive care. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin improved OS from 3.6 to 4.9 months.^33,34

Inotuzumab ozogamicin is a CD22-targeting ADC that has been FDA approved for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL since last year. The therapy has been available to pediatric patients through a compassionate access program, but it has not been extensively evaluated in this population. The results of a retrospective analysis of pediatric patients who received at least 1 dose of inotuzumab ozogamicin were presented at ASCO in 2017. Among 29 patients with heavily pretreated disease the CR rate was 62%, 72% of whom achieved MRD negativity.³⁵

Although there have been significant improvements in patient outcomes for some forms of pediatric cancer, progress has been painfully slow for others. An increasing understanding of pediatric cancers is highlighting the unique molecular drivers and challenging the assumption that drugs developed in adults can be applied to children and young adults. Here, we discuss game-changing therapeutic advances and a shifting view of childhood cancers.

Unique genomic background

Although pediatric cancers are rare, representing just 1% of all new cancers diagnosed annually in the United States, they are the second leading cause of death in children aged 1 to 14 years. There are many different histological tumor types under the umbrella of childhood cancers, of which the most common are leukemias, central nervous system tumors, and lymphomas (Figure 1).^1,2

A ‘magic bullet’?

Chromosomal rearrangements are common in pediatric cancers. This type of molecular abnormality can result in a fusion of 2 different genes when the chromosome breaks apart and the pieces join back together in a muddled order. If the genetic code fuses in a manner that is “readable” by the cell, then it can drive aberrant activation of one or both genes.⁷ Gene fusions often involve kinase enzymes that are essential players in cell signaling pathways regulating hallmark cancer processes, such as unchecked cell proliferation. The fusion drives the constitutive activation of the kinase and, thus, these downstream signaling pathways.

One of the first chromosomal rearrangements linked to cancer, BCR-ABL1 – more commonly known as the Philadelphia chromosome – results in aberrant activation of the ABL1 kinase. It is present in nearly all cases of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and 3% to 5% of patients with ALL, and thus became the central focus of targeted drug development. Imatinib was initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2001 for the treatment of adult patients with CML and had such a significant impact on the treatment landscape that it made the cover of Time magazine as a “magic bullet” in the war on cancer.⁸

Approval was expanded into pediatric patients in 2006 and for pediatric patients with ALL in 2013. However, as with the use of most kinase inhibitors, tumors can evolve under the selective pressure of treatment, developing additional molecular abnormalities that drive resistance.⁹

Next-generation multikinase inhibitors that more potently inhibit the BCR-ABL1 fusion protein have been developed to provide additional treatment options for patients who become resistant to imatinib. Dasatinib and nilotinib are among several drugs that have recently been approved for pediatric cancer therapy (Table 1). Both therapies were approved to treat children with Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML in the chronic phase in either the front- or second-line setting after failure of imatinib.

Other prominent gene fusions

Gene fusions involving the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) occur in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer and ALK inhibitors have provided an effective new treatment option for patients whose tumors display this abnormality.

ALK fusions are also a prominent feature of several kinds of pediatric cancers and ALK inhibitors offer promise in this setting.^7,12 An NPM-ALK fusion is found in 90% of pediatric anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) cases,¹³ whereas a variety of ALK fusions are found in up to half of patients with inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (IMT), a rare form of soft tissue sarcoma.¹⁴ ALK inhibitors are being tested in a variety of clinical trials in pediatric patients (Table 2).

CAR T cells transformative in ALL

A variety of different types of immunotherapy have been tested in patients with pediatric cancers. In general, immunotherapy has proved less effective than in adult cancers, possibly because of the lower tumor mutation burden in pediatric cancers, which means there are likely fewer cancer antigens to provoke an anti-tumor immune response.

There are notable exceptions among the disappointments, however, and most exciting is the development of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. CAR T cells fall into a category of immunotherapy known as adoptive cell therapy (ACT), in which immune cells are harvested from a patient and grown outside the body to increase their numbers before being reinfused into the patient.

In the case of CAR T-cell therapy, the cells are genetically engineered to express a CAR that endows them with tumor-targeting capabilities. To date, the development of CAR T cells has focused on the use of the CD19 antigen as a target, which is highly expressed on a variety of B-cell malignancies, including several of the most common forms of pediatric cancer. ASCO shined the spotlight on CAR T-cell therapy this year, naming it the Advance of the Year for 2018, saying that the treatment is “poised to transform childhood ALL.”¹⁹

Two CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapies – tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel – were brought to market in 2017. Only tisagenlecleucel is approved in the pediatric ALL population, however, having been awarded approval for the treatment of patients aged up to 25 years whose disease is refractory to or relapsed after receiving at least 2 prior therapies. In the pivotal trial, complete responses were observed in more than 60% of patients.²⁰ Clinical trials of both CAR T-cell therapies in pediatric ALL and non-Hodgkin lymphoma are ongoing (Table 3).

More immunotherapy approvals

The immune checkpoint inhibitors, which work by blocking inhibitory receptors on the surface of T cells, have also had recent approvals in pediatric patient populations. Pembrolizumab and nivolumab, inhibitors of the programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) protein, have both been approved for use in adult and pediatric patients (older than 12 years) with relapsed/refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (and other solid tumors in the case of pembrolizumab) that display defects in the mismatch repair pathway that fixes damaged DNA or in patients that have high levels of microsatellite instability. Both deficient mismatch repair and microsatellite instability–high can indicate a high mutation burden in a tumor, which may predict increased sensitivity to immunotherapy.²⁹

The approval in pediatric patients in both of those instances, however, was not based on data in pediatric patient populations but extrapolated from adult patients. Pembrolizumab is also approved for the treatment of adults and pediatric patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) after 3 or more previous treatments, but once again efficacy in the pediatric population was inferred from clinical trials performed in adults. Most recently, pembrolizumab was approved for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma.³⁰Ipilimumab, which targets a different T cell receptor – cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) – has been approved for the treatment of pediatric patients aged 12 years and older with metastatic melanoma. This expanded indication, following on from its approval in adult patients in 2011, was based on data from 2 trials in which objective responses were observed in 2 out of 17 patients, including 1 partial response that lasted 16 months.³¹Finally, antibody-drug conjugates (ADC), in which tumor antigen-targeting monoclonal antibodies are conjugated to cytotoxic payloads to combine the specificity of an antibody with the cell-killing potency of chemotherapy, have also generated some recent successes in pediatric cancers.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin is an ADC that targets the CD33 protein, which is highly expressed on 85%-90% of cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In 2000, it was the first ADC to be brought to market in the United States, but it was subsequently voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer in 2010 after confirmatory trials failed to show a survival benefit.

Recently, a meta-analysis of gemtuzumab ozogamicin trials suggested that the drug likely does improve long-term overall survival (OS) and reduce the risk of relapse and researchers developed an intermittent dosing schedule to help mitigate toxicity.³² This new dosing regimen received FDA approval in 2017 for the treatment of pediatric patients aged 2 years and older on the basis of 2 clinical trials.

In the MyloFrance-1 trial, 57 patients were administered 3 mg/m² gemtuzumab ozogamicin on days 1, 4, and 7 followed by cytarabine consolidation therapy and demonstrated a 26% CR rate and median recurrence-free survival of 11.6 months. In the phase 3 AML-19 trial, 237 patients received gemtuzumab ozogamicin at a dose of 6 mg/m² on day 1 and 3 mg/m² on day 8 or best supportive care. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin improved OS from 3.6 to 4.9 months.^33,34

Inotuzumab ozogamicin is a CD22-targeting ADC that has been FDA approved for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL since last year. The therapy has been available to pediatric patients through a compassionate access program, but it has not been extensively evaluated in this population. The results of a retrospective analysis of pediatric patients who received at least 1 dose of inotuzumab ozogamicin were presented at ASCO in 2017. Among 29 patients with heavily pretreated disease the CR rate was 62%, 72% of whom achieved MRD negativity.³⁵

Although there have been significant improvements in patient outcomes for some forms of pediatric cancer, progress has been painfully slow for others. An increasing understanding of pediatric cancers is highlighting the unique molecular drivers and challenging the assumption that drugs developed in adults can be applied to children and young adults. Here, we discuss game-changing therapeutic advances and a shifting view of childhood cancers.

Unique genomic background

Although pediatric cancers are rare, representing just 1% of all new cancers diagnosed annually in the United States, they are the second leading cause of death in children aged 1 to 14 years. There are many different histological tumor types under the umbrella of childhood cancers, of which the most common are leukemias, central nervous system tumors, and lymphomas (Figure 1).^1,2

A ‘magic bullet’?

Chromosomal rearrangements are common in pediatric cancers. This type of molecular abnormality can result in a fusion of 2 different genes when the chromosome breaks apart and the pieces join back together in a muddled order. If the genetic code fuses in a manner that is “readable” by the cell, then it can drive aberrant activation of one or both genes.⁷ Gene fusions often involve kinase enzymes that are essential players in cell signaling pathways regulating hallmark cancer processes, such as unchecked cell proliferation. The fusion drives the constitutive activation of the kinase and, thus, these downstream signaling pathways.

One of the first chromosomal rearrangements linked to cancer, BCR-ABL1 – more commonly known as the Philadelphia chromosome – results in aberrant activation of the ABL1 kinase. It is present in nearly all cases of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and 3% to 5% of patients with ALL, and thus became the central focus of targeted drug development. Imatinib was initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2001 for the treatment of adult patients with CML and had such a significant impact on the treatment landscape that it made the cover of Time magazine as a “magic bullet” in the war on cancer.⁸

Approval was expanded into pediatric patients in 2006 and for pediatric patients with ALL in 2013. However, as with the use of most kinase inhibitors, tumors can evolve under the selective pressure of treatment, developing additional molecular abnormalities that drive resistance.⁹

Next-generation multikinase inhibitors that more potently inhibit the BCR-ABL1 fusion protein have been developed to provide additional treatment options for patients who become resistant to imatinib. Dasatinib and nilotinib are among several drugs that have recently been approved for pediatric cancer therapy (Table 1). Both therapies were approved to treat children with Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML in the chronic phase in either the front- or second-line setting after failure of imatinib.

Other prominent gene fusions

Gene fusions involving the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) occur in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer and ALK inhibitors have provided an effective new treatment option for patients whose tumors display this abnormality.

ALK fusions are also a prominent feature of several kinds of pediatric cancers and ALK inhibitors offer promise in this setting.^7,12 An NPM-ALK fusion is found in 90% of pediatric anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) cases,¹³ whereas a variety of ALK fusions are found in up to half of patients with inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (IMT), a rare form of soft tissue sarcoma.¹⁴ ALK inhibitors are being tested in a variety of clinical trials in pediatric patients (Table 2).

CAR T cells transformative in ALL

A variety of different types of immunotherapy have been tested in patients with pediatric cancers. In general, immunotherapy has proved less effective than in adult cancers, possibly because of the lower tumor mutation burden in pediatric cancers, which means there are likely fewer cancer antigens to provoke an anti-tumor immune response.

There are notable exceptions among the disappointments, however, and most exciting is the development of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. CAR T cells fall into a category of immunotherapy known as adoptive cell therapy (ACT), in which immune cells are harvested from a patient and grown outside the body to increase their numbers before being reinfused into the patient.

In the case of CAR T-cell therapy, the cells are genetically engineered to express a CAR that endows them with tumor-targeting capabilities. To date, the development of CAR T cells has focused on the use of the CD19 antigen as a target, which is highly expressed on a variety of B-cell malignancies, including several of the most common forms of pediatric cancer. ASCO shined the spotlight on CAR T-cell therapy this year, naming it the Advance of the Year for 2018, saying that the treatment is “poised to transform childhood ALL.”¹⁹

Two CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapies – tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel – were brought to market in 2017. Only tisagenlecleucel is approved in the pediatric ALL population, however, having been awarded approval for the treatment of patients aged up to 25 years whose disease is refractory to or relapsed after receiving at least 2 prior therapies. In the pivotal trial, complete responses were observed in more than 60% of patients.²⁰ Clinical trials of both CAR T-cell therapies in pediatric ALL and non-Hodgkin lymphoma are ongoing (Table 3).

More immunotherapy approvals

The immune checkpoint inhibitors, which work by blocking inhibitory receptors on the surface of T cells, have also had recent approvals in pediatric patient populations. Pembrolizumab and nivolumab, inhibitors of the programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) protein, have both been approved for use in adult and pediatric patients (older than 12 years) with relapsed/refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (and other solid tumors in the case of pembrolizumab) that display defects in the mismatch repair pathway that fixes damaged DNA or in patients that have high levels of microsatellite instability. Both deficient mismatch repair and microsatellite instability–high can indicate a high mutation burden in a tumor, which may predict increased sensitivity to immunotherapy.²⁹

The approval in pediatric patients in both of those instances, however, was not based on data in pediatric patient populations but extrapolated from adult patients. Pembrolizumab is also approved for the treatment of adults and pediatric patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) after 3 or more previous treatments, but once again efficacy in the pediatric population was inferred from clinical trials performed in adults. Most recently, pembrolizumab was approved for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma.³⁰Ipilimumab, which targets a different T cell receptor – cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) – has been approved for the treatment of pediatric patients aged 12 years and older with metastatic melanoma. This expanded indication, following on from its approval in adult patients in 2011, was based on data from 2 trials in which objective responses were observed in 2 out of 17 patients, including 1 partial response that lasted 16 months.³¹Finally, antibody-drug conjugates (ADC), in which tumor antigen-targeting monoclonal antibodies are conjugated to cytotoxic payloads to combine the specificity of an antibody with the cell-killing potency of chemotherapy, have also generated some recent successes in pediatric cancers.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin is an ADC that targets the CD33 protein, which is highly expressed on 85%-90% of cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In 2000, it was the first ADC to be brought to market in the United States, but it was subsequently voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer in 2010 after confirmatory trials failed to show a survival benefit.

Recently, a meta-analysis of gemtuzumab ozogamicin trials suggested that the drug likely does improve long-term overall survival (OS) and reduce the risk of relapse and researchers developed an intermittent dosing schedule to help mitigate toxicity.³² This new dosing regimen received FDA approval in 2017 for the treatment of pediatric patients aged 2 years and older on the basis of 2 clinical trials.

In the MyloFrance-1 trial, 57 patients were administered 3 mg/m² gemtuzumab ozogamicin on days 1, 4, and 7 followed by cytarabine consolidation therapy and demonstrated a 26% CR rate and median recurrence-free survival of 11.6 months. In the phase 3 AML-19 trial, 237 patients received gemtuzumab ozogamicin at a dose of 6 mg/m² on day 1 and 3 mg/m² on day 8 or best supportive care. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin improved OS from 3.6 to 4.9 months.^33,34

Inotuzumab ozogamicin is a CD22-targeting ADC that has been FDA approved for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL since last year. The therapy has been available to pediatric patients through a compassionate access program, but it has not been extensively evaluated in this population. The results of a retrospective analysis of pediatric patients who received at least 1 dose of inotuzumab ozogamicin were presented at ASCO in 2017. Among 29 patients with heavily pretreated disease the CR rate was 62%, 72% of whom achieved MRD negativity.³⁵

BOSTON – Rapid bacterial testing of platelets in a hospital blood bank can result in both significant cost savings and reduced wastage of blood products, investigators said.

ToyToy/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

Rapid bacterial testing of 6- or 7-day-old apheresis platelets resulted in projected annual cost savings of nearly $89,000 per year and cut the rate of platelet wastage from expiration by more than half, reported Adam L. Booth, MD, chief resident in the department of pathology at the University of Texas, Galveston, and his colleagues.

“When a person takes all this time to come in and donate, they do it under the impression that they’re going to help somebody, or several people, and you hate to see those platelets wasted. You want them to be used,” he said in an interview at AABB 2018, the annual meeting of the group formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks.

Platelets typically have a shelf life of just 5 days because longer storage increases the risk for bacterial growth and the potential for transfusion-transmitted infections, Dr. Booth and his colleagues noted in a poster presentation.

A recently published Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for blood banks and transfusion services proposed changing regulations regarding bacterial control of blood products to allow for extended dating if the platelets are collected in an FDA-approved 7-day storage container with labeling that requires testing every product with a bacterial detection device, or if the platelets are individually tested for bacterial detection using an approved device.

To see what effect the regulations, if implemented as expected, might have on acquisition costs and wastage of apheresis platelets, the investigators reviewed their center’s platelet acquisition costs and wastage from expiration 12 months before and 6 months after implementation of a rapid bacterial testing protocol, with 6-month results projected out to 1 year for comparison purposes.

They looked at data on bacterial testing of 6-day and 7-day-old apheresis platelets, and excluded data on platelet units that were due to expire on day 5 because they were not stored in FDA-approved containers.

Prior to testing, 332 units at a mean per-unit cost of $516.96 were wasted, for an annual cost of more than $171,000. After the start of testing, however, the annualized rate of waste dropped to 117 units, for an annualized cost of more than $60,000. The difference – minus the cost of rapid bacterial testing – resulted in an annual savings for the institution of nearly $89,000.

Prior to rapid testing, the annual wastage rate was 24%; after testing, it dropped to an annualized 10% rate, the investigators reported.

The number of units transfused and the associated costs of transfusions were similar between the time periods studied.

“Our findings suggest that rapid bacterial testing can simultaneously enhance the safety of apheresis platelet transfusions and contribute to significant cost savings,” Dr. Booth and his colleagues wrote.

The study was internally funded. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Booth AL et al. AABB18, Abstract INV4.

BOSTON – Rapid bacterial testing of platelets in a hospital blood bank can result in both significant cost savings and reduced wastage of blood products, investigators said.

ToyToy/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

Rapid bacterial testing of 6- or 7-day-old apheresis platelets resulted in projected annual cost savings of nearly $89,000 per year and cut the rate of platelet wastage from expiration by more than half, reported Adam L. Booth, MD, chief resident in the department of pathology at the University of Texas, Galveston, and his colleagues.

“When a person takes all this time to come in and donate, they do it under the impression that they’re going to help somebody, or several people, and you hate to see those platelets wasted. You want them to be used,” he said in an interview at AABB 2018, the annual meeting of the group formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks.

Platelets typically have a shelf life of just 5 days because longer storage increases the risk for bacterial growth and the potential for transfusion-transmitted infections, Dr. Booth and his colleagues noted in a poster presentation.

A recently published Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for blood banks and transfusion services proposed changing regulations regarding bacterial control of blood products to allow for extended dating if the platelets are collected in an FDA-approved 7-day storage container with labeling that requires testing every product with a bacterial detection device, or if the platelets are individually tested for bacterial detection using an approved device.

To see what effect the regulations, if implemented as expected, might have on acquisition costs and wastage of apheresis platelets, the investigators reviewed their center’s platelet acquisition costs and wastage from expiration 12 months before and 6 months after implementation of a rapid bacterial testing protocol, with 6-month results projected out to 1 year for comparison purposes.

They looked at data on bacterial testing of 6-day and 7-day-old apheresis platelets, and excluded data on platelet units that were due to expire on day 5 because they were not stored in FDA-approved containers.

Prior to testing, 332 units at a mean per-unit cost of $516.96 were wasted, for an annual cost of more than $171,000. After the start of testing, however, the annualized rate of waste dropped to 117 units, for an annualized cost of more than $60,000. The difference – minus the cost of rapid bacterial testing – resulted in an annual savings for the institution of nearly $89,000.

Prior to rapid testing, the annual wastage rate was 24%; after testing, it dropped to an annualized 10% rate, the investigators reported.

The number of units transfused and the associated costs of transfusions were similar between the time periods studied.

“Our findings suggest that rapid bacterial testing can simultaneously enhance the safety of apheresis platelet transfusions and contribute to significant cost savings,” Dr. Booth and his colleagues wrote.

The study was internally funded. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Booth AL et al. AABB18, Abstract INV4.

BOSTON – Rapid bacterial testing of platelets in a hospital blood bank can result in both significant cost savings and reduced wastage of blood products, investigators said.

ToyToy/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

Rapid bacterial testing of 6- or 7-day-old apheresis platelets resulted in projected annual cost savings of nearly $89,000 per year and cut the rate of platelet wastage from expiration by more than half, reported Adam L. Booth, MD, chief resident in the department of pathology at the University of Texas, Galveston, and his colleagues.

“When a person takes all this time to come in and donate, they do it under the impression that they’re going to help somebody, or several people, and you hate to see those platelets wasted. You want them to be used,” he said in an interview at AABB 2018, the annual meeting of the group formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks.

Platelets typically have a shelf life of just 5 days because longer storage increases the risk for bacterial growth and the potential for transfusion-transmitted infections, Dr. Booth and his colleagues noted in a poster presentation.

A recently published Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for blood banks and transfusion services proposed changing regulations regarding bacterial control of blood products to allow for extended dating if the platelets are collected in an FDA-approved 7-day storage container with labeling that requires testing every product with a bacterial detection device, or if the platelets are individually tested for bacterial detection using an approved device.

To see what effect the regulations, if implemented as expected, might have on acquisition costs and wastage of apheresis platelets, the investigators reviewed their center’s platelet acquisition costs and wastage from expiration 12 months before and 6 months after implementation of a rapid bacterial testing protocol, with 6-month results projected out to 1 year for comparison purposes.

They looked at data on bacterial testing of 6-day and 7-day-old apheresis platelets, and excluded data on platelet units that were due to expire on day 5 because they were not stored in FDA-approved containers.

Prior to testing, 332 units at a mean per-unit cost of $516.96 were wasted, for an annual cost of more than $171,000. After the start of testing, however, the annualized rate of waste dropped to 117 units, for an annualized cost of more than $60,000. The difference – minus the cost of rapid bacterial testing – resulted in an annual savings for the institution of nearly $89,000.

Prior to rapid testing, the annual wastage rate was 24%; after testing, it dropped to an annualized 10% rate, the investigators reported.

The number of units transfused and the associated costs of transfusions were similar between the time periods studied.

“Our findings suggest that rapid bacterial testing can simultaneously enhance the safety of apheresis platelet transfusions and contribute to significant cost savings,” Dr. Booth and his colleagues wrote.

The study was internally funded. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Booth AL et al. AABB18, Abstract INV4.

Although sickle cell trait (SCT) has been linked to numerous adverse clinical outcomes in multiple studies, only a handful of those associations have strong supporting evidence, results of a systematic review suggest.

Venous and renal complications had the strongest evidence supporting an association with SCT, while exertion-related sudden death – perhaps the highest-profile potential complication of SCT – had moderate-strength evidence supporting a link, according to the review.

By contrast, most other associations between SCT and clinical outcomes had either low-strength evidence or insufficient data to support a link, according to Rakhi P. Naik, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthors of the review.

“Future rigorous studies are needed to address potential complications of SCT and to determine modifiers of risk,” they wrote. The report in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The systematic review by Dr. Naik and colleagues focused on 41 studies, most of which were population-based cohort or case-control studies. They rated the evidence quality of each study and grouped 24 clinical outcomes of interest into six categories: exertion-related injury, renal, vascular, pediatric, surgery- and trauma-related outcomes, and mortality.

Exercise-related injury has received considerable attention, particularly in relation to the military and athletics.

The strength of evidence for a link between SCT and exertion-related death was low in their analysis, which included two studies evaluating the outcome. However, Dr. Naik and coauthors did note that SCT may be associated with a small absolute risk of exertion-related death in extreme conditions such a highly strenuous athletic training or the military.

“We do concur with the American Society of Hematology statement recommending against routine SCT screening in athletics and supporting the consistent use of universal precautions to mitigate exertion-related risk in all persons, regardless of SCT status,” they wrote.

Similarly, the absolute risk of exertional rhabdomyolysis in SCT is small and probably occurs only in high-intensity settings, with risk modified by other genetic and environmental factors, Dr. Naik and coauthors said, based on their analysis of two studies looking at this outcome.

Venous complications had a stronger body of evidence, including several studies showing high levels of procoagulants, which makes elevated venous thromboembolism risk plausible in individuals with SCT.

High-strength evidence linked pulmonary embolism, with or without deep-vein thrombosis, to SCT. In contrast, there was no increased risk of isolated deep-vein thrombosis in these individuals.

“The cause of this paradoxical observation is unknown but may be an increased risk for clot embolization in SCT,” Dr. Naik and colleagues wrote in a discussion of the results.

Renal outcomes were often attributed to SCT, and in this review, the authors said there was evidence to support SCT as a risk factor for both proteinuria and chronic kidney disease.

Out of six studies looking at proteinuria, the one high-quality study found a 1.86-fold increased risk for baseline albuminuria in African Americans with SCT versus those without, according to the review.

Out of four studies looking at chronic kidney disease, the two high-quality studies found 1.57- to 1.89-fold increased risk of those outcomes in African Americans with SCT.

Support for the study came in part from the National Human Genome Research Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors reported disclosures related to Novartis, Addmedica, and Global Blood Therapeutics, among others.

SOURCE: Naik RP et al. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 30. doi:10.7326/M18-1161.

Although sickle cell trait (SCT) has been linked to numerous adverse clinical outcomes in multiple studies, only a handful of those associations have strong supporting evidence, results of a systematic review suggest.

Venous and renal complications had the strongest evidence supporting an association with SCT, while exertion-related sudden death – perhaps the highest-profile potential complication of SCT – had moderate-strength evidence supporting a link, according to the review.

By contrast, most other associations between SCT and clinical outcomes had either low-strength evidence or insufficient data to support a link, according to Rakhi P. Naik, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthors of the review.

“Future rigorous studies are needed to address potential complications of SCT and to determine modifiers of risk,” they wrote. The report in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The systematic review by Dr. Naik and colleagues focused on 41 studies, most of which were population-based cohort or case-control studies. They rated the evidence quality of each study and grouped 24 clinical outcomes of interest into six categories: exertion-related injury, renal, vascular, pediatric, surgery- and trauma-related outcomes, and mortality.

Exercise-related injury has received considerable attention, particularly in relation to the military and athletics.

The strength of evidence for a link between SCT and exertion-related death was low in their analysis, which included two studies evaluating the outcome. However, Dr. Naik and coauthors did note that SCT may be associated with a small absolute risk of exertion-related death in extreme conditions such a highly strenuous athletic training or the military.

“We do concur with the American Society of Hematology statement recommending against routine SCT screening in athletics and supporting the consistent use of universal precautions to mitigate exertion-related risk in all persons, regardless of SCT status,” they wrote.

Similarly, the absolute risk of exertional rhabdomyolysis in SCT is small and probably occurs only in high-intensity settings, with risk modified by other genetic and environmental factors, Dr. Naik and coauthors said, based on their analysis of two studies looking at this outcome.

Venous complications had a stronger body of evidence, including several studies showing high levels of procoagulants, which makes elevated venous thromboembolism risk plausible in individuals with SCT.

High-strength evidence linked pulmonary embolism, with or without deep-vein thrombosis, to SCT. In contrast, there was no increased risk of isolated deep-vein thrombosis in these individuals.

“The cause of this paradoxical observation is unknown but may be an increased risk for clot embolization in SCT,” Dr. Naik and colleagues wrote in a discussion of the results.

Renal outcomes were often attributed to SCT, and in this review, the authors said there was evidence to support SCT as a risk factor for both proteinuria and chronic kidney disease.

Out of six studies looking at proteinuria, the one high-quality study found a 1.86-fold increased risk for baseline albuminuria in African Americans with SCT versus those without, according to the review.

Out of four studies looking at chronic kidney disease, the two high-quality studies found 1.57- to 1.89-fold increased risk of those outcomes in African Americans with SCT.

Support for the study came in part from the National Human Genome Research Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors reported disclosures related to Novartis, Addmedica, and Global Blood Therapeutics, among others.

SOURCE: Naik RP et al. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 30. doi:10.7326/M18-1161.

Although sickle cell trait (SCT) has been linked to numerous adverse clinical outcomes in multiple studies, only a handful of those associations have strong supporting evidence, results of a systematic review suggest.

Venous and renal complications had the strongest evidence supporting an association with SCT, while exertion-related sudden death – perhaps the highest-profile potential complication of SCT – had moderate-strength evidence supporting a link, according to the review.

By contrast, most other associations between SCT and clinical outcomes had either low-strength evidence or insufficient data to support a link, according to Rakhi P. Naik, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthors of the review.

“Future rigorous studies are needed to address potential complications of SCT and to determine modifiers of risk,” they wrote. The report in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The systematic review by Dr. Naik and colleagues focused on 41 studies, most of which were population-based cohort or case-control studies. They rated the evidence quality of each study and grouped 24 clinical outcomes of interest into six categories: exertion-related injury, renal, vascular, pediatric, surgery- and trauma-related outcomes, and mortality.

Exercise-related injury has received considerable attention, particularly in relation to the military and athletics.

The strength of evidence for a link between SCT and exertion-related death was low in their analysis, which included two studies evaluating the outcome. However, Dr. Naik and coauthors did note that SCT may be associated with a small absolute risk of exertion-related death in extreme conditions such a highly strenuous athletic training or the military.

“We do concur with the American Society of Hematology statement recommending against routine SCT screening in athletics and supporting the consistent use of universal precautions to mitigate exertion-related risk in all persons, regardless of SCT status,” they wrote.

Similarly, the absolute risk of exertional rhabdomyolysis in SCT is small and probably occurs only in high-intensity settings, with risk modified by other genetic and environmental factors, Dr. Naik and coauthors said, based on their analysis of two studies looking at this outcome.

Venous complications had a stronger body of evidence, including several studies showing high levels of procoagulants, which makes elevated venous thromboembolism risk plausible in individuals with SCT.

High-strength evidence linked pulmonary embolism, with or without deep-vein thrombosis, to SCT. In contrast, there was no increased risk of isolated deep-vein thrombosis in these individuals.

“The cause of this paradoxical observation is unknown but may be an increased risk for clot embolization in SCT,” Dr. Naik and colleagues wrote in a discussion of the results.

Renal outcomes were often attributed to SCT, and in this review, the authors said there was evidence to support SCT as a risk factor for both proteinuria and chronic kidney disease.

Out of six studies looking at proteinuria, the one high-quality study found a 1.86-fold increased risk for baseline albuminuria in African Americans with SCT versus those without, according to the review.

Out of four studies looking at chronic kidney disease, the two high-quality studies found 1.57- to 1.89-fold increased risk of those outcomes in African Americans with SCT.

Support for the study came in part from the National Human Genome Research Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors reported disclosures related to Novartis, Addmedica, and Global Blood Therapeutics, among others.

SOURCE: Naik RP et al. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 30. doi:10.7326/M18-1161.

For patients with hemophilia and high-titer inhibitors, a new era of treatment has begun with the development of improved variants of traditional bypassing agents and novel, nonfactor-based, prophylactic agents, say authors of a recent review article.

©designer491/Thinkstock

“These new agents may transform the treatment of inhibitor patients and inhibitor-related bleeds, potentially decreasing morbidity and mortality and improving patients’ quality of life,” Amy D. Shapiro, MD, and coauthors wrote in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

Until recently, the only two bypassing agents available were activated prothrombin complex concentrates and recombinant factor VIIa, noted Dr. Shapiro, who is CEO and co-medical director of the Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, Indianapolis, and her coauthors.

The first of the novel targeted agents, emicizumab, is a humanized, bispecific monoclonal antibody that was approved for prophylactic use in hemophilia A in the United States in November 2017.

Emicizumab could transform the treatment of patients with inhibitors, but it also requires reconsideration of how to treat breakthrough bleeds and eliminate the underlying inhibitor, the authors said.

In a phase 3 study, this biologic significantly decreased the annualized bleeding rate by 87% versus on-demand bypassing agent therapy, and by 79% versus a prophylactic bypassing agent regimen, they said, noting that 63% of patients had no bleeding events during the study.

Serious adverse events were seen in patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis, including thrombosis in 2 out of 103 subjects and thrombotic microangiopathy in 3. In all cases, the patients were treating breakthrough bleeds with activated prothrombin complex concentrate, Dr. Shapiro and coauthors wrote.

Other novel agents in clinical development include fitusiran and tissue factor pathway inhibitors, which each target a different natural anticoagulant and could result in new prophylactic options, according to the study coauthors.

“The possibility of multiple therapeutic targets may allow for a highly personalized approach to prophylaxis therapy, with traditional bypassing agents providing options when breakthrough bleeds occur,” they wrote.

In the meantime, eptacog alfa is the “de facto standard” for recombinant factor VIIa, though a new variant under development, eptacog beta, has been accepted for regulatory review in the United States. In a phase 3 clinical trial, eptacog beta appeared to provide improved efficacy and decreased dosing requirements, possibly due to increased binding affinity to endothelial protein C receptor (EPCR), the authors said.

“The addition of improved rFVIIa variants with unique pharmacological and pharmacokinetic profiles will provide new tools to treat bleeding events in inhibitor patients,” Dr. Shapiro and her colleagues wrote.

The use of traditional bypassing agents is expected to decrease over time as new and improved therapeutics are developed. Traditional agents, however, will “remain a necessity” for breakthrough bleeds in hemophilia A patients with inhibitors, and until novel agents become available for hemophilia B, the authors said.

The review article was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from HEMA Biologics, LLC, which had no involvement or editorial control in research, writing or submission. Dr. Shapiro reported disclosures related to HEMA Biologics, Shire, Novo Nordisk, Kedrion Biopharma, Bioverativ, and Genentech.
 

SOURCE: Shapiro AD, et al. J Thromb Haemost. 2018 Sep 28.

For patients with hemophilia and high-titer inhibitors, a new era of treatment has begun with the development of improved variants of traditional bypassing agents and novel, nonfactor-based, prophylactic agents, say authors of a recent review article.

©designer491/Thinkstock

“These new agents may transform the treatment of inhibitor patients and inhibitor-related bleeds, potentially decreasing morbidity and mortality and improving patients’ quality of life,” Amy D. Shapiro, MD, and coauthors wrote in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

Until recently, the only two bypassing agents available were activated prothrombin complex concentrates and recombinant factor VIIa, noted Dr. Shapiro, who is CEO and co-medical director of the Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, Indianapolis, and her coauthors.

The first of the novel targeted agents, emicizumab, is a humanized, bispecific monoclonal antibody that was approved for prophylactic use in hemophilia A in the United States in November 2017.

Emicizumab could transform the treatment of patients with inhibitors, but it also requires reconsideration of how to treat breakthrough bleeds and eliminate the underlying inhibitor, the authors said.

In a phase 3 study, this biologic significantly decreased the annualized bleeding rate by 87% versus on-demand bypassing agent therapy, and by 79% versus a prophylactic bypassing agent regimen, they said, noting that 63% of patients had no bleeding events during the study.

Serious adverse events were seen in patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis, including thrombosis in 2 out of 103 subjects and thrombotic microangiopathy in 3. In all cases, the patients were treating breakthrough bleeds with activated prothrombin complex concentrate, Dr. Shapiro and coauthors wrote.

Other novel agents in clinical development include fitusiran and tissue factor pathway inhibitors, which each target a different natural anticoagulant and could result in new prophylactic options, according to the study coauthors.

“The possibility of multiple therapeutic targets may allow for a highly personalized approach to prophylaxis therapy, with traditional bypassing agents providing options when breakthrough bleeds occur,” they wrote.

In the meantime, eptacog alfa is the “de facto standard” for recombinant factor VIIa, though a new variant under development, eptacog beta, has been accepted for regulatory review in the United States. In a phase 3 clinical trial, eptacog beta appeared to provide improved efficacy and decreased dosing requirements, possibly due to increased binding affinity to endothelial protein C receptor (EPCR), the authors said.

“The addition of improved rFVIIa variants with unique pharmacological and pharmacokinetic profiles will provide new tools to treat bleeding events in inhibitor patients,” Dr. Shapiro and her colleagues wrote.

The use of traditional bypassing agents is expected to decrease over time as new and improved therapeutics are developed. Traditional agents, however, will “remain a necessity” for breakthrough bleeds in hemophilia A patients with inhibitors, and until novel agents become available for hemophilia B, the authors said.

The review article was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from HEMA Biologics, LLC, which had no involvement or editorial control in research, writing or submission. Dr. Shapiro reported disclosures related to HEMA Biologics, Shire, Novo Nordisk, Kedrion Biopharma, Bioverativ, and Genentech.
 

SOURCE: Shapiro AD, et al. J Thromb Haemost. 2018 Sep 28.

For patients with hemophilia and high-titer inhibitors, a new era of treatment has begun with the development of improved variants of traditional bypassing agents and novel, nonfactor-based, prophylactic agents, say authors of a recent review article.

©designer491/Thinkstock

“These new agents may transform the treatment of inhibitor patients and inhibitor-related bleeds, potentially decreasing morbidity and mortality and improving patients’ quality of life,” Amy D. Shapiro, MD, and coauthors wrote in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

Until recently, the only two bypassing agents available were activated prothrombin complex concentrates and recombinant factor VIIa, noted Dr. Shapiro, who is CEO and co-medical director of the Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, Indianapolis, and her coauthors.

The first of the novel targeted agents, emicizumab, is a humanized, bispecific monoclonal antibody that was approved for prophylactic use in hemophilia A in the United States in November 2017.

Emicizumab could transform the treatment of patients with inhibitors, but it also requires reconsideration of how to treat breakthrough bleeds and eliminate the underlying inhibitor, the authors said.

In a phase 3 study, this biologic significantly decreased the annualized bleeding rate by 87% versus on-demand bypassing agent therapy, and by 79% versus a prophylactic bypassing agent regimen, they said, noting that 63% of patients had no bleeding events during the study.

Serious adverse events were seen in patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis, including thrombosis in 2 out of 103 subjects and thrombotic microangiopathy in 3. In all cases, the patients were treating breakthrough bleeds with activated prothrombin complex concentrate, Dr. Shapiro and coauthors wrote.

Other novel agents in clinical development include fitusiran and tissue factor pathway inhibitors, which each target a different natural anticoagulant and could result in new prophylactic options, according to the study coauthors.

“The possibility of multiple therapeutic targets may allow for a highly personalized approach to prophylaxis therapy, with traditional bypassing agents providing options when breakthrough bleeds occur,” they wrote.

In the meantime, eptacog alfa is the “de facto standard” for recombinant factor VIIa, though a new variant under development, eptacog beta, has been accepted for regulatory review in the United States. In a phase 3 clinical trial, eptacog beta appeared to provide improved efficacy and decreased dosing requirements, possibly due to increased binding affinity to endothelial protein C receptor (EPCR), the authors said.

“The addition of improved rFVIIa variants with unique pharmacological and pharmacokinetic profiles will provide new tools to treat bleeding events in inhibitor patients,” Dr. Shapiro and her colleagues wrote.

The use of traditional bypassing agents is expected to decrease over time as new and improved therapeutics are developed. Traditional agents, however, will “remain a necessity” for breakthrough bleeds in hemophilia A patients with inhibitors, and until novel agents become available for hemophilia B, the authors said.

The review article was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from HEMA Biologics, LLC, which had no involvement or editorial control in research, writing or submission. Dr. Shapiro reported disclosures related to HEMA Biologics, Shire, Novo Nordisk, Kedrion Biopharma, Bioverativ, and Genentech.
 

SOURCE: Shapiro AD, et al. J Thromb Haemost. 2018 Sep 28.

Concerns may be unfounded for risks of earlier-onset cardiovascular disease in men with hemophilia A, according to investigators.

Cardiovascular comorbidities between groups were generally comparable, regardless of hemophilia A status, reported lead author Thomas J. Humphries, MD, of Bayer, and his colleagues.

“To date, there have been conflicting data in the literature regarding the risks of [cardiovascular] comorbidities in patients with hemophilia A, compared with the general population,” the investigators wrote in Advances in Medical Sciences. “Some studies have reported lower mortality from [cardiovascular] diseases and/or decreased atherogenesis in patients with hemophilia … conversely, other reports indicate comparable or higher [cardiovascular] comorbidities in patients with hemophilia, compared with the general population.”

In two previous commercial database reviews conducted by Dr. Humphries and his colleagues, cardiovascular disease appeared to occur more commonly and at a younger age in men with hemophilia A. More concerning, patients aged under 40 years showed elevated incidence of stroke and thrombosis. The authors sought to clarify these findings in the present study.

The retrospective chart review involved 74 men with hemophilia A and 222 men without the condition, matched by study year, payer type, race, and age. Patients presented at any of 31 medical facilities within the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit. Diagnoses were made between Jan. 1, 1995, and Dec. 31, 2014.

For the most part there were no significant differences in cardiovascular disease prevalence between the two cohorts. Rates of hypertension, obesity, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, venous and arterial thrombosis, ventricular arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, and chronic renal disease were numerically higher in the control group, but those differences were not statistically significant. There were significantly higher prevalence rates for diabetes (P = .0108) and hyperlipidemia (P = .0001) in the control group versus patients with hemophilia A.

The investigators pointed out that meaningful statistical differences using standardized differences were not reached for venous and arterial thrombosis and atrial fibrillation.

“It is worth noting that in the hemophilia A group, hypertension appeared first in the 18- to 29-year age group, as did venous thrombosis,” the investigators wrote, suggesting that monitoring, starting in the late teens, may be warranted.

The investigators also noted multiple study limitations, notably the small sample size, compared with commercial databases that were reviewed in previous studies. Additionally, the severity of disease was unknown for some of the hemophilia A patients and the study only followed patients for 1 year.

“The results of this retrospective chart review did not confirm diffuse statistically significant differences in [cardiovascular] comorbidities and their earlier onset in hemophilia A versus controls,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by Bayer. Three of the authors were employed by Bayer when the study was conducted. Other authors reported employment with Xcenda and the Henry Ford Health System and research funding from Xcenda.

SOURCE: Humphries TJ et al. Adv Med Sci. 2018;63(2):329-33.

Concerns may be unfounded for risks of earlier-onset cardiovascular disease in men with hemophilia A, according to investigators.

Cardiovascular comorbidities between groups were generally comparable, regardless of hemophilia A status, reported lead author Thomas J. Humphries, MD, of Bayer, and his colleagues.

“To date, there have been conflicting data in the literature regarding the risks of [cardiovascular] comorbidities in patients with hemophilia A, compared with the general population,” the investigators wrote in Advances in Medical Sciences. “Some studies have reported lower mortality from [cardiovascular] diseases and/or decreased atherogenesis in patients with hemophilia … conversely, other reports indicate comparable or higher [cardiovascular] comorbidities in patients with hemophilia, compared with the general population.”

In two previous commercial database reviews conducted by Dr. Humphries and his colleagues, cardiovascular disease appeared to occur more commonly and at a younger age in men with hemophilia A. More concerning, patients aged under 40 years showed elevated incidence of stroke and thrombosis. The authors sought to clarify these findings in the present study.

The retrospective chart review involved 74 men with hemophilia A and 222 men without the condition, matched by study year, payer type, race, and age. Patients presented at any of 31 medical facilities within the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit. Diagnoses were made between Jan. 1, 1995, and Dec. 31, 2014.

For the most part there were no significant differences in cardiovascular disease prevalence between the two cohorts. Rates of hypertension, obesity, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, venous and arterial thrombosis, ventricular arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, and chronic renal disease were numerically higher in the control group, but those differences were not statistically significant. There were significantly higher prevalence rates for diabetes (P = .0108) and hyperlipidemia (P = .0001) in the control group versus patients with hemophilia A.

The investigators pointed out that meaningful statistical differences using standardized differences were not reached for venous and arterial thrombosis and atrial fibrillation.

“It is worth noting that in the hemophilia A group, hypertension appeared first in the 18- to 29-year age group, as did venous thrombosis,” the investigators wrote, suggesting that monitoring, starting in the late teens, may be warranted.

The investigators also noted multiple study limitations, notably the small sample size, compared with commercial databases that were reviewed in previous studies. Additionally, the severity of disease was unknown for some of the hemophilia A patients and the study only followed patients for 1 year.

“The results of this retrospective chart review did not confirm diffuse statistically significant differences in [cardiovascular] comorbidities and their earlier onset in hemophilia A versus controls,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by Bayer. Three of the authors were employed by Bayer when the study was conducted. Other authors reported employment with Xcenda and the Henry Ford Health System and research funding from Xcenda.

SOURCE: Humphries TJ et al. Adv Med Sci. 2018;63(2):329-33.

Concerns may be unfounded for risks of earlier-onset cardiovascular disease in men with hemophilia A, according to investigators.

Cardiovascular comorbidities between groups were generally comparable, regardless of hemophilia A status, reported lead author Thomas J. Humphries, MD, of Bayer, and his colleagues.

“To date, there have been conflicting data in the literature regarding the risks of [cardiovascular] comorbidities in patients with hemophilia A, compared with the general population,” the investigators wrote in Advances in Medical Sciences. “Some studies have reported lower mortality from [cardiovascular] diseases and/or decreased atherogenesis in patients with hemophilia … conversely, other reports indicate comparable or higher [cardiovascular] comorbidities in patients with hemophilia, compared with the general population.”

In two previous commercial database reviews conducted by Dr. Humphries and his colleagues, cardiovascular disease appeared to occur more commonly and at a younger age in men with hemophilia A. More concerning, patients aged under 40 years showed elevated incidence of stroke and thrombosis. The authors sought to clarify these findings in the present study.

The retrospective chart review involved 74 men with hemophilia A and 222 men without the condition, matched by study year, payer type, race, and age. Patients presented at any of 31 medical facilities within the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit. Diagnoses were made between Jan. 1, 1995, and Dec. 31, 2014.

For the most part there were no significant differences in cardiovascular disease prevalence between the two cohorts. Rates of hypertension, obesity, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, venous and arterial thrombosis, ventricular arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, and chronic renal disease were numerically higher in the control group, but those differences were not statistically significant. There were significantly higher prevalence rates for diabetes (P = .0108) and hyperlipidemia (P = .0001) in the control group versus patients with hemophilia A.

The investigators pointed out that meaningful statistical differences using standardized differences were not reached for venous and arterial thrombosis and atrial fibrillation.

“It is worth noting that in the hemophilia A group, hypertension appeared first in the 18- to 29-year age group, as did venous thrombosis,” the investigators wrote, suggesting that monitoring, starting in the late teens, may be warranted.

The investigators also noted multiple study limitations, notably the small sample size, compared with commercial databases that were reviewed in previous studies. Additionally, the severity of disease was unknown for some of the hemophilia A patients and the study only followed patients for 1 year.

“The results of this retrospective chart review did not confirm diffuse statistically significant differences in [cardiovascular] comorbidities and their earlier onset in hemophilia A versus controls,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by Bayer. Three of the authors were employed by Bayer when the study was conducted. Other authors reported employment with Xcenda and the Henry Ford Health System and research funding from Xcenda.

SOURCE: Humphries TJ et al. Adv Med Sci. 2018;63(2):329-33.

The high price of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for pediatric leukemia may prove cost effective if long-term survival benefits are realized, researchers reported.

utah778/Thinkstock

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the CAR T-cell therapy tisagenlecleucel suggests that the $475,000 price tag is in alignment with the lifetime benefits of the treatment. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Tisagenlecleucel – marketed as Kymriah – is a one-dose treatment for relapsed or refractory pediatric B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and the first CAR T-cell therapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, researchers used a decision analytic model that extrapolated the evidence from clinical trials over a patient’s lifetime to assess life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental costs per life-year and QALY gained. The comparator was the chemoimmunotherapeutic agent clofarabine.

While tisagenlecleucel has a list price of $475,000, researchers discounted the price by 3% and added several additional costs, such as hospital administration, pretreatment, and potential adverse events, to get to a total discounted cost of about $667,000. They estimated that 42.6% of patients were considered to be long-term survivors with tisagenlecleucel, 10.34 life-years would be gained, and 9.28 QALYs would be gained.

In comparison, clofarabine had a total discounted cost of approximately $337,000 (including an initial discounted price of $164,000 plus additional treatment and administrative costs), 10.8% of patients were long-term survivors, 2.43 life-years were gained, and 2.10 QALYs were gained in the model.

Overall, the mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was about $46,000 per QALY gained in this base-case model.

In analyses of different scenarios, such as a deeper discount, a different treatment start, or a different calculation of future treatment costs, the cost-effectiveness ratio varied from $37,000 to $78,000 per QALY gained.

“We acknowledge that considerable uncertainty remains around the long-term benefit of tisagenlecleucel owing to limited available evidence; however, with current evidence and assumptions, tisagenlecleucel meets commonly cited value thresholds over a patient lifetime horizon, assuming payment for treatment acquisition for responders at 1 month,” wrote Melanie D. Whittington, PhD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and her colleagues.

The authors noted that the clinical trial evidence for tisagenlecleucel came from single-arm trials, which made selection of a comparator challenging. Clofarabine was chosen because it had the most similar baseline population characteristics, but they acknowledged that blinatumomab was also frequently used as a treatment for these patients.

“We suspect that tisagenlecleucel would remain cost effective, compared with blinatumomab,” they wrote. “A study conducted by other researchers found the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of tisagenlecleucel versus blinatumomab was similar to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of tisagenlecleucel versus clofarabine [i.e., $3,000 more per QALY].”

The authors suggested that uncertainties in the evidence should be considered as payers are negotiating coverage and payment for tisagenlecleucel.

“Novel payment models consistent with the present evidence may reduce the risk and uncertainty in long-term value and be more closely aligned with ensuring high-value care,” they wrote. “Financing cures in the United States is challenging, owing to the high up-front price, rapid uptake, and uncertainty in long-term outcomes; however, innovative payment models are an opportunity to address some of these challenges and to promote patient access to novel and promising therapies.”

The study was funded by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which receives some funding from the pharmaceutical industry. Four authors are employees of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

SOURCE: Whittington MD et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Oct 8. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2530.

The high price of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for pediatric leukemia may prove cost effective if long-term survival benefits are realized, researchers reported.

utah778/Thinkstock

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the CAR T-cell therapy tisagenlecleucel suggests that the $475,000 price tag is in alignment with the lifetime benefits of the treatment. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Tisagenlecleucel – marketed as Kymriah – is a one-dose treatment for relapsed or refractory pediatric B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and the first CAR T-cell therapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, researchers used a decision analytic model that extrapolated the evidence from clinical trials over a patient’s lifetime to assess life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental costs per life-year and QALY gained. The comparator was the chemoimmunotherapeutic agent clofarabine.

While tisagenlecleucel has a list price of $475,000, researchers discounted the price by 3% and added several additional costs, such as hospital administration, pretreatment, and potential adverse events, to get to a total discounted cost of about $667,000. They estimated that 42.6% of patients were considered to be long-term survivors with tisagenlecleucel, 10.34 life-years would be gained, and 9.28 QALYs would be gained.

In comparison, clofarabine had a total discounted cost of approximately $337,000 (including an initial discounted price of $164,000 plus additional treatment and administrative costs), 10.8% of patients were long-term survivors, 2.43 life-years were gained, and 2.10 QALYs were gained in the model.

Overall, the mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was about $46,000 per QALY gained in this base-case model.

In analyses of different scenarios, such as a deeper discount, a different treatment start, or a different calculation of future treatment costs, the cost-effectiveness ratio varied from $37,000 to $78,000 per QALY gained.

“We acknowledge that considerable uncertainty remains around the long-term benefit of tisagenlecleucel owing to limited available evidence; however, with current evidence and assumptions, tisagenlecleucel meets commonly cited value thresholds over a patient lifetime horizon, assuming payment for treatment acquisition for responders at 1 month,” wrote Melanie D. Whittington, PhD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and her colleagues.

The authors noted that the clinical trial evidence for tisagenlecleucel came from single-arm trials, which made selection of a comparator challenging. Clofarabine was chosen because it had the most similar baseline population characteristics, but they acknowledged that blinatumomab was also frequently used as a treatment for these patients.

“We suspect that tisagenlecleucel would remain cost effective, compared with blinatumomab,” they wrote. “A study conducted by other researchers found the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of tisagenlecleucel versus blinatumomab was similar to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of tisagenlecleucel versus clofarabine [i.e., $3,000 more per QALY].”

The authors suggested that uncertainties in the evidence should be considered as payers are negotiating coverage and payment for tisagenlecleucel.

“Novel payment models consistent with the present evidence may reduce the risk and uncertainty in long-term value and be more closely aligned with ensuring high-value care,” they wrote. “Financing cures in the United States is challenging, owing to the high up-front price, rapid uptake, and uncertainty in long-term outcomes; however, innovative payment models are an opportunity to address some of these challenges and to promote patient access to novel and promising therapies.”

The study was funded by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which receives some funding from the pharmaceutical industry. Four authors are employees of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

SOURCE: Whittington MD et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Oct 8. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2530.

The high price of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for pediatric leukemia may prove cost effective if long-term survival benefits are realized, researchers reported.

utah778/Thinkstock

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the CAR T-cell therapy tisagenlecleucel suggests that the $475,000 price tag is in alignment with the lifetime benefits of the treatment. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Tisagenlecleucel – marketed as Kymriah – is a one-dose treatment for relapsed or refractory pediatric B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and the first CAR T-cell therapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, researchers used a decision analytic model that extrapolated the evidence from clinical trials over a patient’s lifetime to assess life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental costs per life-year and QALY gained. The comparator was the chemoimmunotherapeutic agent clofarabine.

While tisagenlecleucel has a list price of $475,000, researchers discounted the price by 3% and added several additional costs, such as hospital administration, pretreatment, and potential adverse events, to get to a total discounted cost of about $667,000. They estimated that 42.6% of patients were considered to be long-term survivors with tisagenlecleucel, 10.34 life-years would be gained, and 9.28 QALYs would be gained.

In comparison, clofarabine had a total discounted cost of approximately $337,000 (including an initial discounted price of $164,000 plus additional treatment and administrative costs), 10.8% of patients were long-term survivors, 2.43 life-years were gained, and 2.10 QALYs were gained in the model.

Overall, the mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was about $46,000 per QALY gained in this base-case model.

In analyses of different scenarios, such as a deeper discount, a different treatment start, or a different calculation of future treatment costs, the cost-effectiveness ratio varied from $37,000 to $78,000 per QALY gained.

“We acknowledge that considerable uncertainty remains around the long-term benefit of tisagenlecleucel owing to limited available evidence; however, with current evidence and assumptions, tisagenlecleucel meets commonly cited value thresholds over a patient lifetime horizon, assuming payment for treatment acquisition for responders at 1 month,” wrote Melanie D. Whittington, PhD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and her colleagues.

The authors noted that the clinical trial evidence for tisagenlecleucel came from single-arm trials, which made selection of a comparator challenging. Clofarabine was chosen because it had the most similar baseline population characteristics, but they acknowledged that blinatumomab was also frequently used as a treatment for these patients.

“We suspect that tisagenlecleucel would remain cost effective, compared with blinatumomab,” they wrote. “A study conducted by other researchers found the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of tisagenlecleucel versus blinatumomab was similar to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of tisagenlecleucel versus clofarabine [i.e., $3,000 more per QALY].”

The authors suggested that uncertainties in the evidence should be considered as payers are negotiating coverage and payment for tisagenlecleucel.

“Novel payment models consistent with the present evidence may reduce the risk and uncertainty in long-term value and be more closely aligned with ensuring high-value care,” they wrote. “Financing cures in the United States is challenging, owing to the high up-front price, rapid uptake, and uncertainty in long-term outcomes; however, innovative payment models are an opportunity to address some of these challenges and to promote patient access to novel and promising therapies.”

The study was funded by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which receives some funding from the pharmaceutical industry. Four authors are employees of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

SOURCE: Whittington MD et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Oct 8. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2530.

BOSTON – Even the most vigilant hospitals experience problems with blood storage and delivery on the patient floor, particularly in pediatric units, investigators cautioned.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

A review of patient safety incidents that occurred surrounding more than 1 million transfusions in U.S. hospitals showed that pediatric transfusions were associated with a higher rate of safety problems compared with adult transfusions, with errors differing by age group.

“We just looked at units transfused [and] incidents that occurred during product administration and we found that the highest incident in the pediatric population is that the protocol is not being followed, and the highest incident in the adult population is that the transfusion is not performed, in error, at all,” said Sarah Vossoughi, MD, of Columbia University and New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.

In both settings, the investigators observed problems with product storage on the patient floor. “It’s very common for blood banks to find platelets in the refrigerator. It doesn’t matter how old you are or what type of hospital you’re at – everyone’s putting platelets in the fridge,” she said in an interview at AABB 2018, the annual meeting of the organization formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks.

Dr. Vossoughi and her colleagues in New York and at the University of Vermont in Burlington noted that the National Patient Safety Foundation, now a part of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, declared preventable medical harm to be a public health crisis. In a paper published in the BMJ in 2016, researchers estimated that medical errors were the third leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for more than 250,000 fatalities annually.

Dr. Vossoughi also pointed to a study suggesting that the incidence of nonlethal medical errors may be 10- to 20-fold higher than the number of fatal errors (J Patient Saf. 2013 Sep;9[3]:122-8).

To evaluate patient safety events related to blood transfusions, Dr. Vossoughi and her colleagues drew data on events reported by three children’s hospitals and 29 adult hospitals to either the AABB Center for Patient Safety or the medical center’s own adverse event reporting system from January 2010 through September 2017.

They identified a total of 1,806 reports associated with approximately 1,088.884 transfusions. Of these reports, 249 were associated with 99,064 pediatric transfusions, and 1,577 were reported in association with 989,820 adult transfusions.

In all, 31% of the pediatric events were failure to follow the transfusion protocol.

“In a lot of the pediatric hospitals, it’s kind of like the Wild West. People say, ‘well I know it’s the hospital policy, but this child is special, so I’m going to do it this way, this time.’ That seems to be a culture in pediatrics, whereas on the adult side [clinicians] seem to be much less likely to just deviate from the protocol,” Dr. Vossoughi said.

Among adults, 43% of the errors were “transfusion not performed,” which may occur because of a bungled patient hand-off during a shift change, or when a patient is being moved from one unit to another.

“The next day, they’ll check the patient’s CBC and realize that the patient didn’t respond to the infusion that it turned out they never got, and then the product will be found on the floor, expired,” Dr. Vossoughi said.

In all, 20% of pediatric errors and 24% of adult errors were associated with incorrect storage of blood products on the patient floor.

The information they presented could help inpatient blood management programs target education and interventions to providers who commit similar errors.

“If you know that a particular provider group has problems following the protocol, maybe you can make the protocol a little simpler to follow, or make the checklist less cumbersome, and then maybe they’ll follow them more often,” she said.

The study was supported by the AABB Center for Patient Safety and University of Vermont Medical Center. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Vossoughi S et al. AABB 2018, Abstract QT4.

BOSTON – Even the most vigilant hospitals experience problems with blood storage and delivery on the patient floor, particularly in pediatric units, investigators cautioned.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

A review of patient safety incidents that occurred surrounding more than 1 million transfusions in U.S. hospitals showed that pediatric transfusions were associated with a higher rate of safety problems compared with adult transfusions, with errors differing by age group.

“We just looked at units transfused [and] incidents that occurred during product administration and we found that the highest incident in the pediatric population is that the protocol is not being followed, and the highest incident in the adult population is that the transfusion is not performed, in error, at all,” said Sarah Vossoughi, MD, of Columbia University and New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.

In both settings, the investigators observed problems with product storage on the patient floor. “It’s very common for blood banks to find platelets in the refrigerator. It doesn’t matter how old you are or what type of hospital you’re at – everyone’s putting platelets in the fridge,” she said in an interview at AABB 2018, the annual meeting of the organization formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks.

Dr. Vossoughi and her colleagues in New York and at the University of Vermont in Burlington noted that the National Patient Safety Foundation, now a part of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, declared preventable medical harm to be a public health crisis. In a paper published in the BMJ in 2016, researchers estimated that medical errors were the third leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for more than 250,000 fatalities annually.

Dr. Vossoughi also pointed to a study suggesting that the incidence of nonlethal medical errors may be 10- to 20-fold higher than the number of fatal errors (J Patient Saf. 2013 Sep;9[3]:122-8).

To evaluate patient safety events related to blood transfusions, Dr. Vossoughi and her colleagues drew data on events reported by three children’s hospitals and 29 adult hospitals to either the AABB Center for Patient Safety or the medical center’s own adverse event reporting system from January 2010 through September 2017.

They identified a total of 1,806 reports associated with approximately 1,088.884 transfusions. Of these reports, 249 were associated with 99,064 pediatric transfusions, and 1,577 were reported in association with 989,820 adult transfusions.

In all, 31% of the pediatric events were failure to follow the transfusion protocol.

“In a lot of the pediatric hospitals, it’s kind of like the Wild West. People say, ‘well I know it’s the hospital policy, but this child is special, so I’m going to do it this way, this time.’ That seems to be a culture in pediatrics, whereas on the adult side [clinicians] seem to be much less likely to just deviate from the protocol,” Dr. Vossoughi said.

Among adults, 43% of the errors were “transfusion not performed,” which may occur because of a bungled patient hand-off during a shift change, or when a patient is being moved from one unit to another.

“The next day, they’ll check the patient’s CBC and realize that the patient didn’t respond to the infusion that it turned out they never got, and then the product will be found on the floor, expired,” Dr. Vossoughi said.

In all, 20% of pediatric errors and 24% of adult errors were associated with incorrect storage of blood products on the patient floor.

The information they presented could help inpatient blood management programs target education and interventions to providers who commit similar errors.

“If you know that a particular provider group has problems following the protocol, maybe you can make the protocol a little simpler to follow, or make the checklist less cumbersome, and then maybe they’ll follow them more often,” she said.

The study was supported by the AABB Center for Patient Safety and University of Vermont Medical Center. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Vossoughi S et al. AABB 2018, Abstract QT4.

BOSTON – Even the most vigilant hospitals experience problems with blood storage and delivery on the patient floor, particularly in pediatric units, investigators cautioned.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

A review of patient safety incidents that occurred surrounding more than 1 million transfusions in U.S. hospitals showed that pediatric transfusions were associated with a higher rate of safety problems compared with adult transfusions, with errors differing by age group.

“We just looked at units transfused [and] incidents that occurred during product administration and we found that the highest incident in the pediatric population is that the protocol is not being followed, and the highest incident in the adult population is that the transfusion is not performed, in error, at all,” said Sarah Vossoughi, MD, of Columbia University and New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.

In both settings, the investigators observed problems with product storage on the patient floor. “It’s very common for blood banks to find platelets in the refrigerator. It doesn’t matter how old you are or what type of hospital you’re at – everyone’s putting platelets in the fridge,” she said in an interview at AABB 2018, the annual meeting of the organization formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks.

Dr. Vossoughi and her colleagues in New York and at the University of Vermont in Burlington noted that the National Patient Safety Foundation, now a part of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, declared preventable medical harm to be a public health crisis. In a paper published in the BMJ in 2016, researchers estimated that medical errors were the third leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for more than 250,000 fatalities annually.

Dr. Vossoughi also pointed to a study suggesting that the incidence of nonlethal medical errors may be 10- to 20-fold higher than the number of fatal errors (J Patient Saf. 2013 Sep;9[3]:122-8).

To evaluate patient safety events related to blood transfusions, Dr. Vossoughi and her colleagues drew data on events reported by three children’s hospitals and 29 adult hospitals to either the AABB Center for Patient Safety or the medical center’s own adverse event reporting system from January 2010 through September 2017.

They identified a total of 1,806 reports associated with approximately 1,088.884 transfusions. Of these reports, 249 were associated with 99,064 pediatric transfusions, and 1,577 were reported in association with 989,820 adult transfusions.

In all, 31% of the pediatric events were failure to follow the transfusion protocol.

“In a lot of the pediatric hospitals, it’s kind of like the Wild West. People say, ‘well I know it’s the hospital policy, but this child is special, so I’m going to do it this way, this time.’ That seems to be a culture in pediatrics, whereas on the adult side [clinicians] seem to be much less likely to just deviate from the protocol,” Dr. Vossoughi said.

Among adults, 43% of the errors were “transfusion not performed,” which may occur because of a bungled patient hand-off during a shift change, or when a patient is being moved from one unit to another.

“The next day, they’ll check the patient’s CBC and realize that the patient didn’t respond to the infusion that it turned out they never got, and then the product will be found on the floor, expired,” Dr. Vossoughi said.

In all, 20% of pediatric errors and 24% of adult errors were associated with incorrect storage of blood products on the patient floor.

The information they presented could help inpatient blood management programs target education and interventions to providers who commit similar errors.

“If you know that a particular provider group has problems following the protocol, maybe you can make the protocol a little simpler to follow, or make the checklist less cumbersome, and then maybe they’ll follow them more often,” she said.

The study was supported by the AABB Center for Patient Safety and University of Vermont Medical Center. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Vossoughi S et al. AABB 2018, Abstract QT4.

Oncologists are raising concerns about care access after the launch of a new company that links patients to cancer care options and clinical trials through mobile technology.

Driver, which began in September in the U.S. and China, is a global technology platform that allows patients to access treatment options across a broad network of cancer centers without leaving home. Cancer patients join the platform using a mobile app, through which Driver obtains the required consent to acquire medical records and tumor samples, and the company uses the information to recommend treatment options and clinical trials.

ljubaphoto/Getty Images

A separate app called Driver for Clinic enables oncologists who belong to Driver’s partner hospitals to manage their institution’s clinical trial information and quickly filter that information based on patients’ medical history to determine the patient’s eligibility for treatments.

Driver’s mission is to connect more patients to the best cancer treatments, regardless of location, said Will Polkinghorn, MD, Driver cofounder and CEO.

“Driver’s cofounders met at Harvard Medical School [in Boston] and saw firsthand the challenges of patients getting access to the latest, cutting-edge treatments available,” Dr. Polkinghorn said in an interview. “As doctors, [we] also witnessed how difficult it was for doctors to manage information in clinic and know about all the treatments that become available all around the world. Driver was created as a platform, with an app for the patient and an app for the doctor, to solve this broken marketplace.”

As part of the model, patients can review their recommended treatment options through video with an expert oncologist and select a hospital within Driver’s network for further evaluation. The company’s global network includes more than 30 leading U.S. cancer centers, including the Cleveland Clinic; multiple locations of the Mayo Clinic; the University of California, San Francisco; and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. The U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Chinese National Cancer Center are founding members of Driver’s global network, according to the company.

Making more information and treatment options available is a positive for patients, said Walter Stadler, MD, chief of hematology/oncology and director of the genitourinary oncology program at the University of Chicago. However, he noted that the cost for patients to use Driver is prohibitive for many patients. Driver charges patients $3,000 up front and then a $20 monthly fee to use its service. Insurance does not subsidize the cost, nor does Driver help with travel or treatment costs, according to its website.

“It’s inequality of access,” Dr. Stadler said in an interview. “Many of us are very concerned that the clinical trials currently being conducted do not represent the general population well because they don’t represent patients with disparities … Here, we further exacerbate the problem by saying, ‘Okay, we’ll take the 5% of patients who can afford the service and expand their access, and the others, well, that’s not our problem.’ ”

“Access to clinical trials for patients residing in rural areas, as well as those getting their treatment in community based clinics, would not change,” Dr. Patel said in an interview. “Hence, challenges of social and demographic disparities and inequalities in clinical trial access and participation would be altered minimally. There is much greater need for such [platforms to include] community cancer clinics that would be more inclusive and encompass larger geographic areas where the majority of patients receive their care.”

Disadvantaged populations with limited access are not being overlooked by the company, according to Driver leaders. A branch of the company called Driver for All aims to increase access to optimal treatments for free through partnerships with local communities, Dr. Polkinghorn said. Driver for All has thus far partnered with Howard University Hospital in Washington to connect Howard patients to clinical trials at NCI. A partnership with Beijing Children’s Hospital and the Futang Research Center of Pediatric Development, meanwhile, is working to connect patients with rare-disease experts. Driver has funded 100% of the cost of these projects to date, according to its website.

Outside of Driver for All, Dr. Polkinghorn acknowledges that patients must bear the cost of Driver’s consumer products; however, the price should be viewed in context, he said.

“It’s important to remember that today, in order to be evaluated by 30 [plus] centers for treatment options, patients would need to fly to these centers, make appointments, and be seen by a doctor – this would require both time and resources for flights/hotels, which would cost much more than our sticker price,” he said. “So while $3,000 is a lot of money for some patients, Driver’s product is ultimately able to provide more visibility to options that simply would not be realistic today.”

James Gulley, MD, of the National Cancer Institute Center for Cancer Research, said any platform that can efficiently provide access to clinical trial options yields another source of information for patients to utilize in decision making with their health provider. Dr. Gulley, who heads the center’s genitourinary malignancies branch, declined to comment about access-to-care concerns with Driver’s model. He emphasized that patients who participate in NIH research studies are treated without charge.

“The key to finding better [cancer] treatment is to perform science-driven clinical trials,” Dr. Gulley said in an interview. “However, there are many barriers for enrollment in clinical trials. … As a government agency, NCI is open to partnering with any organization that seeks to improve access to clinical trials for cancer patients.”

NCI and Driver recently conducted a study to validate Driver’s platform; it showed that Driver’s technology successfully predicted the eligibility of patients in NCI Center for Cancer Research clinical trials. The study, presented at a recent American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, evaluated Driver’s processing of 21 metastatic prostate cancer patients enrolled in a therapeutic NCI clinical trial within the last five years. Results showed Driver correctly predicted that 20 of the patients were “potentially eligible” for the trial in which they were enrolled, and that one was ineligible. Based on the study, a protocol is now in development for a new clinical study, which will seek to further determine the efficiency and accuracy of the clinical trial access program created by Driver, according to Dr. Gulley.

“We need breakthrough technologies and opportunities for patients to be able to access the most successful and promising cancer treatments, regardless of where they live,” Dr. Ryan said in an interview. “Companies like Driver are attempting to bridge that gap by connecting patients to doctors at world class cancer institutes and direct them toward the best care for their particular condition.”

Driver’s model also allows researchers the opportunity to develop specific, unique treatment for less common cancers and remain optimistic that they can attract patients to receive such treatments as they are developed, Dr. Ryan said.

Dr. Stadler, however, worries that Driver may be giving patients the wrong perception that all it takes is a computer and medical records to determine their best treatment route.

“There’s a lot more subtlety to treatment decisions than most people would like to admit,” Dr. Stadler said. “It’s more than just a bunch of data from sophisticated laboratory tests and the written medical record. Obtaining objective information is the first step, but it’s far from the only step.”

Patients may have significant limitations in functional status that is apparent only during an in-person assessment, for example, he said. In other cases, family members may be essential in conveying information about a patient’s cognitive disabilities. Even when such information is documented, it is sometimes difficult to extract the full picture from the record alone, he said. Dr. Stadler is also bothered that the model requires physicians and hospitals to provide their skilled analyses to a for-profit company, which in turn, charges patients to review the information.

“This is our work,” he said. “I agree that patients should have the information, and I don’t mind sharing anything I have with patients, but now I’m going to share it with another business that essentially is competing with me in terms of providing guidance to patients.”

Oncologists are raising concerns about care access after the launch of a new company that links patients to cancer care options and clinical trials through mobile technology.

Driver, which began in September in the U.S. and China, is a global technology platform that allows patients to access treatment options across a broad network of cancer centers without leaving home. Cancer patients join the platform using a mobile app, through which Driver obtains the required consent to acquire medical records and tumor samples, and the company uses the information to recommend treatment options and clinical trials.

ljubaphoto/Getty Images

A separate app called Driver for Clinic enables oncologists who belong to Driver’s partner hospitals to manage their institution’s clinical trial information and quickly filter that information based on patients’ medical history to determine the patient’s eligibility for treatments.

Driver’s mission is to connect more patients to the best cancer treatments, regardless of location, said Will Polkinghorn, MD, Driver cofounder and CEO.

“Driver’s cofounders met at Harvard Medical School [in Boston] and saw firsthand the challenges of patients getting access to the latest, cutting-edge treatments available,” Dr. Polkinghorn said in an interview. “As doctors, [we] also witnessed how difficult it was for doctors to manage information in clinic and know about all the treatments that become available all around the world. Driver was created as a platform, with an app for the patient and an app for the doctor, to solve this broken marketplace.”

As part of the model, patients can review their recommended treatment options through video with an expert oncologist and select a hospital within Driver’s network for further evaluation. The company’s global network includes more than 30 leading U.S. cancer centers, including the Cleveland Clinic; multiple locations of the Mayo Clinic; the University of California, San Francisco; and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. The U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Chinese National Cancer Center are founding members of Driver’s global network, according to the company.

Making more information and treatment options available is a positive for patients, said Walter Stadler, MD, chief of hematology/oncology and director of the genitourinary oncology program at the University of Chicago. However, he noted that the cost for patients to use Driver is prohibitive for many patients. Driver charges patients $3,000 up front and then a $20 monthly fee to use its service. Insurance does not subsidize the cost, nor does Driver help with travel or treatment costs, according to its website.

“It’s inequality of access,” Dr. Stadler said in an interview. “Many of us are very concerned that the clinical trials currently being conducted do not represent the general population well because they don’t represent patients with disparities … Here, we further exacerbate the problem by saying, ‘Okay, we’ll take the 5% of patients who can afford the service and expand their access, and the others, well, that’s not our problem.’ ”

“Access to clinical trials for patients residing in rural areas, as well as those getting their treatment in community based clinics, would not change,” Dr. Patel said in an interview. “Hence, challenges of social and demographic disparities and inequalities in clinical trial access and participation would be altered minimally. There is much greater need for such [platforms to include] community cancer clinics that would be more inclusive and encompass larger geographic areas where the majority of patients receive their care.”

Disadvantaged populations with limited access are not being overlooked by the company, according to Driver leaders. A branch of the company called Driver for All aims to increase access to optimal treatments for free through partnerships with local communities, Dr. Polkinghorn said. Driver for All has thus far partnered with Howard University Hospital in Washington to connect Howard patients to clinical trials at NCI. A partnership with Beijing Children’s Hospital and the Futang Research Center of Pediatric Development, meanwhile, is working to connect patients with rare-disease experts. Driver has funded 100% of the cost of these projects to date, according to its website.

Outside of Driver for All, Dr. Polkinghorn acknowledges that patients must bear the cost of Driver’s consumer products; however, the price should be viewed in context, he said.

“It’s important to remember that today, in order to be evaluated by 30 [plus] centers for treatment options, patients would need to fly to these centers, make appointments, and be seen by a doctor – this would require both time and resources for flights/hotels, which would cost much more than our sticker price,” he said. “So while $3,000 is a lot of money for some patients, Driver’s product is ultimately able to provide more visibility to options that simply would not be realistic today.”

James Gulley, MD, of the National Cancer Institute Center for Cancer Research, said any platform that can efficiently provide access to clinical trial options yields another source of information for patients to utilize in decision making with their health provider. Dr. Gulley, who heads the center’s genitourinary malignancies branch, declined to comment about access-to-care concerns with Driver’s model. He emphasized that patients who participate in NIH research studies are treated without charge.

“The key to finding better [cancer] treatment is to perform science-driven clinical trials,” Dr. Gulley said in an interview. “However, there are many barriers for enrollment in clinical trials. … As a government agency, NCI is open to partnering with any organization that seeks to improve access to clinical trials for cancer patients.”

NCI and Driver recently conducted a study to validate Driver’s platform; it showed that Driver’s technology successfully predicted the eligibility of patients in NCI Center for Cancer Research clinical trials. The study, presented at a recent American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, evaluated Driver’s processing of 21 metastatic prostate cancer patients enrolled in a therapeutic NCI clinical trial within the last five years. Results showed Driver correctly predicted that 20 of the patients were “potentially eligible” for the trial in which they were enrolled, and that one was ineligible. Based on the study, a protocol is now in development for a new clinical study, which will seek to further determine the efficiency and accuracy of the clinical trial access program created by Driver, according to Dr. Gulley.

“We need breakthrough technologies and opportunities for patients to be able to access the most successful and promising cancer treatments, regardless of where they live,” Dr. Ryan said in an interview. “Companies like Driver are attempting to bridge that gap by connecting patients to doctors at world class cancer institutes and direct them toward the best care for their particular condition.”

Driver’s model also allows researchers the opportunity to develop specific, unique treatment for less common cancers and remain optimistic that they can attract patients to receive such treatments as they are developed, Dr. Ryan said.

Dr. Stadler, however, worries that Driver may be giving patients the wrong perception that all it takes is a computer and medical records to determine their best treatment route.

“There’s a lot more subtlety to treatment decisions than most people would like to admit,” Dr. Stadler said. “It’s more than just a bunch of data from sophisticated laboratory tests and the written medical record. Obtaining objective information is the first step, but it’s far from the only step.”

Patients may have significant limitations in functional status that is apparent only during an in-person assessment, for example, he said. In other cases, family members may be essential in conveying information about a patient’s cognitive disabilities. Even when such information is documented, it is sometimes difficult to extract the full picture from the record alone, he said. Dr. Stadler is also bothered that the model requires physicians and hospitals to provide their skilled analyses to a for-profit company, which in turn, charges patients to review the information.

“This is our work,” he said. “I agree that patients should have the information, and I don’t mind sharing anything I have with patients, but now I’m going to share it with another business that essentially is competing with me in terms of providing guidance to patients.”

Oncologists are raising concerns about care access after the launch of a new company that links patients to cancer care options and clinical trials through mobile technology.

Driver, which began in September in the U.S. and China, is a global technology platform that allows patients to access treatment options across a broad network of cancer centers without leaving home. Cancer patients join the platform using a mobile app, through which Driver obtains the required consent to acquire medical records and tumor samples, and the company uses the information to recommend treatment options and clinical trials.

ljubaphoto/Getty Images

A separate app called Driver for Clinic enables oncologists who belong to Driver’s partner hospitals to manage their institution’s clinical trial information and quickly filter that information based on patients’ medical history to determine the patient’s eligibility for treatments.

Driver’s mission is to connect more patients to the best cancer treatments, regardless of location, said Will Polkinghorn, MD, Driver cofounder and CEO.

“Driver’s cofounders met at Harvard Medical School [in Boston] and saw firsthand the challenges of patients getting access to the latest, cutting-edge treatments available,” Dr. Polkinghorn said in an interview. “As doctors, [we] also witnessed how difficult it was for doctors to manage information in clinic and know about all the treatments that become available all around the world. Driver was created as a platform, with an app for the patient and an app for the doctor, to solve this broken marketplace.”

As part of the model, patients can review their recommended treatment options through video with an expert oncologist and select a hospital within Driver’s network for further evaluation. The company’s global network includes more than 30 leading U.S. cancer centers, including the Cleveland Clinic; multiple locations of the Mayo Clinic; the University of California, San Francisco; and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. The U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Chinese National Cancer Center are founding members of Driver’s global network, according to the company.

Making more information and treatment options available is a positive for patients, said Walter Stadler, MD, chief of hematology/oncology and director of the genitourinary oncology program at the University of Chicago. However, he noted that the cost for patients to use Driver is prohibitive for many patients. Driver charges patients $3,000 up front and then a $20 monthly fee to use its service. Insurance does not subsidize the cost, nor does Driver help with travel or treatment costs, according to its website.

“It’s inequality of access,” Dr. Stadler said in an interview. “Many of us are very concerned that the clinical trials currently being conducted do not represent the general population well because they don’t represent patients with disparities … Here, we further exacerbate the problem by saying, ‘Okay, we’ll take the 5% of patients who can afford the service and expand their access, and the others, well, that’s not our problem.’ ”

“Access to clinical trials for patients residing in rural areas, as well as those getting their treatment in community based clinics, would not change,” Dr. Patel said in an interview. “Hence, challenges of social and demographic disparities and inequalities in clinical trial access and participation would be altered minimally. There is much greater need for such [platforms to include] community cancer clinics that would be more inclusive and encompass larger geographic areas where the majority of patients receive their care.”

Disadvantaged populations with limited access are not being overlooked by the company, according to Driver leaders. A branch of the company called Driver for All aims to increase access to optimal treatments for free through partnerships with local communities, Dr. Polkinghorn said. Driver for All has thus far partnered with Howard University Hospital in Washington to connect Howard patients to clinical trials at NCI. A partnership with Beijing Children’s Hospital and the Futang Research Center of Pediatric Development, meanwhile, is working to connect patients with rare-disease experts. Driver has funded 100% of the cost of these projects to date, according to its website.

Outside of Driver for All, Dr. Polkinghorn acknowledges that patients must bear the cost of Driver’s consumer products; however, the price should be viewed in context, he said.

“It’s important to remember that today, in order to be evaluated by 30 [plus] centers for treatment options, patients would need to fly to these centers, make appointments, and be seen by a doctor – this would require both time and resources for flights/hotels, which would cost much more than our sticker price,” he said. “So while $3,000 is a lot of money for some patients, Driver’s product is ultimately able to provide more visibility to options that simply would not be realistic today.”

James Gulley, MD, of the National Cancer Institute Center for Cancer Research, said any platform that can efficiently provide access to clinical trial options yields another source of information for patients to utilize in decision making with their health provider. Dr. Gulley, who heads the center’s genitourinary malignancies branch, declined to comment about access-to-care concerns with Driver’s model. He emphasized that patients who participate in NIH research studies are treated without charge.

“The key to finding better [cancer] treatment is to perform science-driven clinical trials,” Dr. Gulley said in an interview. “However, there are many barriers for enrollment in clinical trials. … As a government agency, NCI is open to partnering with any organization that seeks to improve access to clinical trials for cancer patients.”

NCI and Driver recently conducted a study to validate Driver’s platform; it showed that Driver’s technology successfully predicted the eligibility of patients in NCI Center for Cancer Research clinical trials. The study, presented at a recent American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, evaluated Driver’s processing of 21 metastatic prostate cancer patients enrolled in a therapeutic NCI clinical trial within the last five years. Results showed Driver correctly predicted that 20 of the patients were “potentially eligible” for the trial in which they were enrolled, and that one was ineligible. Based on the study, a protocol is now in development for a new clinical study, which will seek to further determine the efficiency and accuracy of the clinical trial access program created by Driver, according to Dr. Gulley.

“We need breakthrough technologies and opportunities for patients to be able to access the most successful and promising cancer treatments, regardless of where they live,” Dr. Ryan said in an interview. “Companies like Driver are attempting to bridge that gap by connecting patients to doctors at world class cancer institutes and direct them toward the best care for their particular condition.”

Driver’s model also allows researchers the opportunity to develop specific, unique treatment for less common cancers and remain optimistic that they can attract patients to receive such treatments as they are developed, Dr. Ryan said.

Dr. Stadler, however, worries that Driver may be giving patients the wrong perception that all it takes is a computer and medical records to determine their best treatment route.

“There’s a lot more subtlety to treatment decisions than most people would like to admit,” Dr. Stadler said. “It’s more than just a bunch of data from sophisticated laboratory tests and the written medical record. Obtaining objective information is the first step, but it’s far from the only step.”

Patients may have significant limitations in functional status that is apparent only during an in-person assessment, for example, he said. In other cases, family members may be essential in conveying information about a patient’s cognitive disabilities. Even when such information is documented, it is sometimes difficult to extract the full picture from the record alone, he said. Dr. Stadler is also bothered that the model requires physicians and hospitals to provide their skilled analyses to a for-profit company, which in turn, charges patients to review the information.

“This is our work,” he said. “I agree that patients should have the information, and I don’t mind sharing anything I have with patients, but now I’m going to share it with another business that essentially is competing with me in terms of providing guidance to patients.”

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ID CORE XT, a molecular-based assay that uses DNA to test for non-ABO red blood cell types for use in transfusion.

It’s the second molecular test for blood compatibility but the first to report genotype in its results, according to an announcement from the agency.

The test is important because it evaluates patients – especially those who receive repeated blood transfusions for conditions such as sickle cell anemia – for non-ABO antigens, but it does so without using antisera, which is sometimes unavailable.

A study found comparable performance between the ID CORE XT, licensed serologic reagents, and DNA sequencing tests, according to the FDA.

The ID CORE XT test is marketed by Progenika Biopharma, a Grifols company.

More information can be found in the full FDA press announcement.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ID CORE XT, a molecular-based assay that uses DNA to test for non-ABO red blood cell types for use in transfusion.

It’s the second molecular test for blood compatibility but the first to report genotype in its results, according to an announcement from the agency.

The test is important because it evaluates patients – especially those who receive repeated blood transfusions for conditions such as sickle cell anemia – for non-ABO antigens, but it does so without using antisera, which is sometimes unavailable.

A study found comparable performance between the ID CORE XT, licensed serologic reagents, and DNA sequencing tests, according to the FDA.

The ID CORE XT test is marketed by Progenika Biopharma, a Grifols company.

More information can be found in the full FDA press announcement.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ID CORE XT, a molecular-based assay that uses DNA to test for non-ABO red blood cell types for use in transfusion.

It’s the second molecular test for blood compatibility but the first to report genotype in its results, according to an announcement from the agency.

The test is important because it evaluates patients – especially those who receive repeated blood transfusions for conditions such as sickle cell anemia – for non-ABO antigens, but it does so without using antisera, which is sometimes unavailable.

A study found comparable performance between the ID CORE XT, licensed serologic reagents, and DNA sequencing tests, according to the FDA.

The ID CORE XT test is marketed by Progenika Biopharma, a Grifols company.

More information can be found in the full FDA press announcement.

[email protected]