Estcourt Lise J, Malouf Reem, Hopewell Sally, Trivella Marialena, Doree Carolyn, Stanworth Simon J, Murphy Michael F
Haematology/Transfusion Medicine, NHS Blood and Transplant, Level 2, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, UK, OX3 9BQ.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 30;7(7):CD009072. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009072.pub3.
Platelet transfusions are used to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic. Despite improvements in donor screening and laboratory testing, a small risk of viral, bacterial, or protozoal contamination of platelets remains. There is also an ongoing risk from newly emerging blood transfusion-transmitted infections for which laboratory tests may not be available at the time of initial outbreak.One solution to reduce the risk of blood transfusion-transmitted infections from platelet transfusion is photochemical pathogen reduction, in which pathogens are either inactivated or significantly depleted in number, thereby reducing the chance of transmission. This process might offer additional benefits, including platelet shelf-life extension, and negate the requirement for gamma-irradiation of platelets. Although current pathogen-reduction technologies have been proven to reduce pathogen load in platelet concentrates, a number of published clinical studies have raised concerns about the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for post-transfusion platelet count recovery and the prevention of bleeding when compared with standard platelets.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013.
To assess the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding in people of any age requiring platelet transfusions.
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 24 October 2016.
We included RCTs comparing the transfusion of pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets, or comparing different types of pathogen-reduced platelets.
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
We identified five new trials in this update of the review. A total of 15 trials were eligible for inclusion in this review, 12 completed trials (2075 participants) and three ongoing trials. Ten of the 12 completed trials were included in the original review. We did not identify any RCTs comparing the transfusion of one type of pathogen-reduced platelets with another.Nine trials compared Intercept® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets, two trials compared Mirasol® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets; and one trial compared both pathogen-reduced platelets types to standard platelets. Three RCTs were randomised cross-over trials, and nine were parallel-group trials. Of the 2075 participants enrolled in the trials, 1981 participants received at least one platelet transfusion (1662 participants in Intercept® platelet trials and 319 in Mirasol® platelet trials).One trial included children requiring cardiac surgery (16 participants) or adults requiring a liver transplant (28 participants). All of the other participants were thrombocytopenic individuals who had a haematological or oncological diagnosis. Eight trials included only adults.Four of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, while the remaining eight included studies had some threats to validity.Overall, the quality of the evidence was low to high across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology.We are very uncertain as to whether pathogen-reduced platelets increase the risk of any bleeding (World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 1 to 4) (5 trials, 1085 participants; fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.15; I = 59%, random-effect RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; I = 59%; low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of clinically significant bleeding complications (WHO Grade 2 or higher) (5 trials, 1392 participants; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.25; I = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and there is probably no difference in the risk of developing severe bleeding (WHO Grade 3 or higher) (6 trials, 1495 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.02; I = 32%; moderate-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of all-cause mortality at 4 to 12 weeks (6 trials, 1509 participants; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.29; I = 26%; moderate-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of serious adverse events (7 trials, 1340 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; I = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). However, no bacterial transfusion-transmitted infections occurred in the six trials that reported this outcome.Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had an increased risk of developing platelet refractoriness (7 trials, 1525 participants; RR 2.94, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.16; I = 0%; high-quality evidence), though the definition of platelet refractoriness differed between trials.Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions required more platelet transfusions (6 trials, 1509 participants; mean difference (MD) 1.23, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; I = 27%; high-quality evidence), and there was probably a shorter time interval between transfusions (6 trials, 1489 participants; MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.32; I = 29%; moderate-quality evidence). Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had a lower 24-hour corrected-count increment (7 trials, 1681 participants; MD -3.02, 95% CI -3.57 to -2.48; I = 15%; high-quality evidence).None of the studies reported quality of life.We did not evaluate any economic outcomes.There was evidence of subgroup differences in multiple transfusion trials between the two pathogen-reduced platelet technologies assessed in this review (Intercept® and Mirasol®) for all-cause mortality and the interval between platelet transfusions (favouring Intercept®).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review were based on 12 trials, and of the 1981 participants who received a platelet transfusion only 44 did not have a haematological or oncological diagnosis.In people with haematological or oncological disorders who are thrombocytopenic due to their disease or its treatment, we found high-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions increase the risk of platelet refractoriness and the platelet transfusion requirement. We found moderate-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions do not affect all-cause mortality, the risk of clinically significant or severe bleeding, or the risk of a serious adverse event. There was insufficient evidence for people with other diagnoses.All three ongoing trials are in adults (planned recruitment 1375 participants) with a haematological or oncological diagnosis.
血小板输注用于预防和治疗血小板减少症患者的出血。尽管在献血者筛查和实验室检测方面有所改进,但血小板仍存在病毒、细菌或原生动物污染的小风险。新出现的输血传播感染也存在持续风险,在初次爆发时可能尚无可用的实验室检测方法。
减少血小板输注导致的输血传播感染风险的一种解决方案是光化学病原体灭活,即病原体被灭活或数量显著减少,从而降低传播几率。这一过程可能还有其他益处,包括延长血小板保存期限,并无需对血小板进行伽马射线照射。虽然目前的病原体灭活技术已被证明可降低血小板浓缩物中的病原体负荷,但一些已发表的临床研究对与标准血小板相比,经病原体灭活的血小板在输血后血小板计数恢复及预防出血方面的有效性提出了担忧。
这是Cochrane系统评价的更新版,该评价首次发表于2013年。
评估经病原体灭活的血小板对需要血小板输注的各年龄段人群预防出血的有效性。
我们在Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(Cochrane图书馆2016年第9期)、MEDLINE(1946年起)、Embase(1974年起)、CINAHL(1937年起)、输血证据图书馆(1950年起)以及截至2016年10月24日的正在进行的试验数据库中检索随机对照试验(RCT)。
我们纳入了比较经病原体灭活的血小板与标准血小板输注,或比较不同类型经病原体灭活的血小板的RCT。
我们采用Cochrane期望的标准方法程序。
在本次系统评价更新中,我们识别出5项新试验。共有15项试验符合纳入本系统评价的标准,其中12项完成试验(2075名参与者),3项正在进行的试验。12项完成试验中的10项包含在原系统评价中。我们未识别出比较一种经病原体灭活的血小板与另一种经病原体灭活的血小板输注的RCT。
9项试验比较了Intercept®经病原体灭活的血小板与标准血小板,2项试验比较了Mirasol®经病原体灭活的血小板与标准血小板;1项试验同时比较了两种经病原体灭活的血小板与标准血小板。3项RCT为随机交叉试验,9项为平行组试验。在纳入试验的2075名参与者中,1981名参与者接受了至少一次血小板输注(1662名参与者参与Intercept®血小板试验,319名参与Mirasol®血小板试验)。
1项试验纳入了需要心脏手术的儿童(16名参与者)或需要肝移植的成人(28名参与者)。所有其他参与者均为因血液学或肿瘤学诊断而血小板减少的个体。8项试验仅纳入了成人。
纳入的研究中,4项在各个领域的偏倚风险均较低,其余8项纳入研究存在一些对有效性的威胁。
总体而言,根据GRADE方法,不同结局的证据质量从低到高不等。
我们非常不确定经病原体灭活的血小板是否会增加任何出血(世界卫生组织(WHO)1至4级)的风险(5项试验,1085名参与者;固定效应风险比(RR)1.09,95%置信区间(CI)1.02至1.15;I² = 59%,随机效应RR 1.14,95% CI 0.93至1.38;I² = 59%;低质量证据)。
在临床显著出血并发症(WHO 2级或更高)的发生率方面,经病原体灭活的血小板与标准血小板之间没有差异的证据(5项试验,1392名参与者;RR 1.10,95% CI 0.97至1.25;I² = 0%;中等质量证据),并且在发生严重出血(WHO 3级或更高)的风险方面可能也没有差异(6项试验,1495名参与者;RR 1.24,95% CI 0.76至2.02;I² = 32%;中等质量证据)。
在4至12周时,全因死亡率的发生率方面,经病原体灭活的血小板与标准血小板之间可能没有差异(6项试验,1509名参与者;RR 0.81,95% CI 0.50至1.29;I² = 26%;中等质量证据)。
在严重不良事件的发生率方面,经病原体灭活的血小板与标准血小板之间可能没有差异(7项试验,1340名参与者;RR 1.09,95% CI 0.88至1.35;I² = 0%;中等质量证据)。然而,在报告该结局的6项试验中,未发生细菌输血传播感染。
接受经病原体灭活的血小板输注的参与者发生血小板输注无效的风险增加(7项试验,1525名参与者;RR 2.94,95% CI 2.08至4.16;I² = 0%;高质量证据),尽管各试验中血小板输注无效的定义有所不同。
接受经病原体灭活的血小板输注的参与者需要更多的血小板输注(6项试验,1509名参与者;平均差(MD)1.23,95% CI 0.86至1.61;I² = 27%;高质量证据),并且输血间隔时间可能更短(6项试验,1489名参与者;MD -0.42,95% CI -0.53至 -0.32;I² = 29%;中等质量证据)。接受经病原体灭活的血小板输注的参与者24小时校正计数增加值较低(7项试验,1681名参与者;MD -3.02,95% CI -3.57至 -2.48;I² = 15%;高质量证据)。
没有研究报告生活质量。我们未评估任何经济结局。
在本系统评价中评估的两种经病原体灭活的血小板技术(Intercept®和Mirasol®)之间的多次输血试验中,存在全因死亡率和血小板输血间隔时间亚组差异的证据(支持Intercept®)。
本系统评价的结果基于12项试验,在接受血小板输注的1981名参与者中,只有44名没有血液学或肿瘤学诊断。
在因疾病或其治疗而血小板减少的血液学或肿瘤学疾病患者中,我们发现高质量证据表明,经病原体灭活的血小板输注会增加血小板输注无效和血小板输注需求的风险。我们发现中等质量证据表明,经病原体灭活的血小板输注不会影响全因死亡率、临床显著或严重出血的风险或严重不良事件的风险。对于其他诊断的患者,证据不足。
所有3项正在进行的试验均纳入患有血液学或肿瘤学诊断的成人(计划招募1375名参与者)。