Skip to main content

Transfusions From Ever-Pregnant Women May Up Mortality Risk

Transfusions from females who have been pregnant to males, especially those younger than 50 years, may be associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality, compared with such transfusions to females or with transfusions from women who have never been pregnant to recipients of either sex, according to a study published online on October 17 in JAMA.
Since 2011, several studies have suggested that blood transfusions from women are riskier for recipients than are transfusions from men, and that that risk is greatest from women who have been pregnant. The most common cause of transfusion-related mortality, acute lung injury, is associated with use of plasma-rich products, suggesting an antibody-mediated immune response.
To further examine these associations, Camila Caram-Deelder, a PhD student in the Department of Transfusion Medicine at Sanquin Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and coworkers analyzed the association between red blood cell transfusion from female blood donors, with and without a history of pregnancy, and mortality among male and female recipients. Sanquin is the source of blood in the Netherlands, and all blood is leukocyte-depleted.
The researchers used a retrospective cohort of people who received their first transfusion between May 30, 2005, and September 1, 2015, at one of six major Dutch hospitals. They considered the age and sex of recipients and the sex and pregnancy history (when known) of donors. Some data were recorded before questions were asked about pregnancy status.
The original database included information from 42,132 patients who received 106,641 units of red blood cells (76% from male donors, 12% from ever-pregnant donors, 12% from never-pregnant female donors). From this group, the researchers further assessed a "no-donor-mixture" cohort of 31,118 patients who received 59,320 units of red blood cells exclusively from male donors, exclusively from female donors without a history of pregnancy (never-pregnant donors), or exclusively from female donors with a history of pregnancy (ever-pregnant donors).
The investigation followed the recipients for a median of 245 days. The median age of the recipients was 65 years, and 16,123 (52%) were female. During follow-up, 3969 recipients died.
The hazard ratio (HR) for death after receiving one additional unit of red blood cells from a never-pregnant female donor, compared with receiving a unit from a male donor, was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 - 1.06) for male recipients and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.88 - 1.15) for female recipients. In contrast, the HR for death after one additional unit of red blood cells from an ever-pregnant female donor, compared with a unit from a male donor, was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01 - 1.26) for male recipients and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.87 - 1.13) for female recipients.
The largest increase in mortality was found in male patients younger than 50 years who received transfusions from ever-pregnant donors (for ages 0 to 18 years: HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.02 - 2.61; for ages 18 to 50 years: HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.98 - 2.30).
Analysis of a subgroup who underwent single transfusions revealed 3-year cumulative mortality among male recipients of 13.5% after receiving a transfusion from a male donor and 13.1% after receiving a transfusion from a never-pregnant female donor (difference, 0.4%; 95% CI, −3.8% to 3.0%). The 3-year cumulative mortality among male recipients was 16.9% after receiving a transfusion from an ever-pregnant female donor (difference, 3.5%; 95% CI, −0.3% to 7.2%).
Among female recipients, mortality was 12.6% after a transfusion from a male donor and 12.0% after a transfusion from a never-pregnant female donor (difference, 0.6%; 95% CI, −3.7% to 2.6%) and 15.9% after a transfusion from an ever-pregnant female donor (difference, 3.3%; 95% CI, −0.5% to 7.1%).
For the full cohort (including individuals who had received blood from more than one of the three groups), HR of transfusion from an ever-pregnant female donor compared with a male donor was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.02 - 1.15) for all male recipients, 1.18 (95% CI, 0.82 - 1.69) for male recipients through age 17, and 1.43 (95% CI, 1.13 - 1.82) for male recipients aged 18 through 50. For female recipients, the HR for death after one additional unit of red blood cells from an ever-pregnant female donor compared to a male donor was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.93 - 1.07).
The researchers conclude, "Male recipients who received a transfusion from an ever-pregnant female donor had a statistically significant increase in mortality compared with those who received a transfusion from a male donor or from a female donor without a history of pregnancy. There was no significant association between pregnancy status of female donors of red blood cells and mortality among female recipients of red blood cell transfusions."
An alternative hypothesis to an immune response against male antigens is iron-deficiency anemia in blood from females, which would possibly mean greater need for additional transfusions for recipients, but would not explain the sex difference for mortality among recipients.
Limitations of the study include the lack of information on cause of death and the absence of pregnancy information for earlier blood donations.
In an accompanying editorial, Ritchard G. Cable, MD, of the American Red Cross Blood Services in Farmington, Connecticut, and Gustaf Edgren, MD, PhD, of the Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, point out the complexity of the data and possible sources of confusion.
  • Exclusion of patients who received transfusions from more than one of the three types of donors (male, ever-pregnant, and never-pregnant) could have excluded sicker patients who required more transfusions.
  • The fact that blood from females has about 8% less hemoglobin may have influenced the number of transfusions that individuals required.
  • Some of the older women in the overall cohort, who joined before pregnancy status was queried, may have been pregnant. Without this information, the study design could not capture waning effects of immunity with time.
  • The greater effect among men younger than 50 could reflect the effect of androgens, not restriction to males.
Dr Cable and Dr Edgren suggest that if the immune response to paternal (Y chromosome-encoded) antigens is the underlying mechanism, then blood from mothers of sons should present a greater risk than blood from mothers of daughters. However, this was not examined in the current study.
"In light of the limitations of the study by Caram-Deelder et al, current criteria for blood donor selection should not change. However, additional investigation is needed," Dr Cable and Dr Edgren write. They also advocate extending analysis to a more genetically diverse population than persons living in the Netherlands.
If the association between ever-pregnant female blood donors and increased male recipient mortality persists with expanded studies, then blood centers might institute sex-matched transfusions and improve methods of purifying red blood cell products, the editorial writers suggest.
Dr Zwaginga has received a speaking fee from Vifor Pharma and serves on the advisory councils of Novartis and Amgen Science. The other authors and the editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
JAMA. Published online October 17, 2017. AbstractEditorial

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...