Therapeutic efficacy and safety of pathogen-reduced platelet components: Results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Clinical efficacy and safety of pathogen-reduced platelet concentrates (PR-PCs) concerning bleeding prevention are still debated despite conclusive real-world data from multiple countries where PR-PCs are transfused routinely. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of conventional platelet components (PCs) and PR-PCs prepared with the amotosalen/ultraviolet A light (INTERCEPT platelet concentrate [I-PC]) or riboflavin/ultraviolet light (Mirasol platelet concentrate [M-PC]) technologies, transfused in thrombocytopenic adult patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted, and 10 RCTs met the criteria for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Summary odds ratios (ORs) of clinically significant bleeding (World Health Organization [WHO] bleeding grade ≥2), severe bleeding (WHO bleeding score ≥3) and all-cause mortality were calculated.

RESULTS

The use of I-PC was not associated with an increase in the OR of clinically significant bleeding when compared to non-treated PCs (OR, 1.12; 95% CI: 0.89-1.41; p = 0.33), whereas transfusions with M-PC showed an increase in clinically significant bleeding (OR, 1.34; 95% CI: 1.03-1.75; p = 0.03). The OR of severe bleeding did not increase with either I-PC or M-PC (OR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.59-1.31; p = 0.52 for I-PC; OR 1.25; 95% CI: 0.66-2.37; p = 0.49 for M-PC). In the case of all-cause mortality, compared to non-treated PC, I-PC showed an OR of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.36-1.04; p = 0.07), and M-PC showed an OR of 3.04 (95% CI: 0.81-11.47; p = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

No differences were observed concerning the clinical efficacy and safety of overall PR-PCs when compared to non-treated PCs. However, differences are evident when analysing platelets prepared with the two PR technologies independently.