Search

On March 25 and 26, 2015, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute sponsored a meeting on the State of the Science in Transfusion Medicine on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus in Bethesda, Maryland, which was attended by a diverse group of 330 registrants. The meeting's goal was to identify important research questions that could be answered in the next 5 to 10 years and which would have the potential to transform the clinical practice of transfusion medicine. These questions could be addressed by basic, translational, and/or clinical research studies and were focused on four areas: the three "classical" transfusion products (i.e., red blood cells, platelets, and plasma) and blood donor issues. Before the meeting, four working groups, one for each area, prepared five major questions for discussion along with a list of five to 10 additional questions for consideration. At the meeting itself, all of these questions, and others, were discussed in keynote lectures, small-group breakout sessions, and large-group sessions with open discourse involving all meeting attendees. In addition to the final lists of questions, provided herein, the meeting attendees identified multiple overarching, cross-cutting themes that addressed issues common to all four areas; the latter are also provided. It is anticipated that addressing these scientific priorities, with careful attention to the overarching themes, will inform funding priorities developed by the NIH and provide a solid research platform for transforming the future practice of transfusion medicine.

Cell therapy products have become more sophisticated both in type and manufacturing complexity (1-3). As clinicians' and researchers' understanding of disease and cell mechanisms of action continue to grow, cell therapy products are being increasingly used or considered for use in clinical trials (4-12). The safety and efficacy of cell therapy products have been reported within individual clinical trials and through review articles (13-19). These publications are often limited to an individual cell type and also differ by how the data are being collected and reported. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has provided funds to study the use of cell therapy in the United States with a goal of building a database similar to that established and maintained by the bone marrow transplant community for years. The European Union has pursued a similar goal. Despite these efforts, there is limited published information that describes cell therapy product administration across both cell types and indications. To this end, The National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies (PACT) program has collected data over the past 10 years on the administration of cell therapy products manufactured within the program. The PACT program was formed in 2003 through funding from the NHLBI. The program provides clinical cell therapy product manufacturing support to investigators wishing to transition a novel cell therapy from the developmental stage to clinical applications within the purview of the NHLBI. PACT is not responsible for directly monitoring the clinical trials of investigators receiving PACT-manufactured products. PACT has required collection of standardized information on product manufacturing, transport, receipt, administration, and adverse reactions with product administration. The purpose of this data collection is 1) to monitor administration of PACT cell therapy products, and 2) to build a product administration database to identify trends or safety concerns that may be associated with cell therapy product administrations. All clinical trials where PACT has provided manufacturing support were approved by local ethics committees.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is the study of existing treatments or ways to deliver health care to determine what intervention works best under specific circumstances. CER evaluates evidence from existing studies or generates new evidence, in different populations and under specific conditions in which the treatments are actually used. CER does not embrace one research design over another but compares treatments and variations in practice using methods that are most likely to yield widely generalizable results that are directly relevant to clinical practice. Treatments used in transfusion medicine (TM) are among the most widely used in clinical practice, but are among the least well studied. High-quality evidence is lacking for most transfusion practices, with research efforts hampered by regulatory restrictions and ethical barriers. To begin addressing these issues, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a workshop in June 2011 to address the potential role of CER in the generation of high-quality evidence for TM decision making. Workshop goals were to: 1) evaluate the current landscape of clinical research, 2) review the potential application of CER methods to clinical research, 3) assess potential barriers to the use of CER methodology, 4) determine whether pilot or vanguard studies can be used to facilitate planning of future CER research, and 5) consider the need for and delivery of training in CER methods for researchers.

In 2002, to determine investigator needs in cellular therapeutics, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) conducted a workshop entitled “Immune reconstitution and cell-based therapy following hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) transplantation.”1 The workshop addressed the biology of immune reconstitution after transplantation, but also considered newer and more complex cell-processing methods and the changing regulatory environment in which they were emerging. The workshop participants recognized that, compared with classical HSC processing and transplantation, a much broader array of cell products and tissue types was being brought from the research laboratory to the clinic and that these activities presented both opportunities and challenges that were new and very significant. Opportunities included the emerging possibilities related to specific cell selection, stimulation, expansion, and how these and other laboratory manipulations were enabling fundamentally new treatments for a range of diseases. Challenges included the substantial difficulties often encountered when translating and scaling up preclinical research projects from their beginnings in the basic research laboratory. The workshop participants also recognized that cost and availability of highly specialized technical and regulatory expertise were significant barriers to the growth and success of human cellular therapy. Relatively few academic research institutions at the time had access to experienced cell-processing personnel, manufacturing facilities, and the regulatory expertise needed to develop a cell product internally. To address these issues and foster the growth of innovative scientific concepts in cellular therapy, the NHLBI initiated the Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies (PACT) program as a scientific, regulatory, and educational resource for the cell therapy community.2

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is the study of existing treatments or ways to deliver health care to determine what intervention works best under specific circumstances. CER evaluates evidence from existing studies or generates new evidence, in different populations and under specific conditions in which the treatments are actually used. CER does not embrace one research design over another but compares treatments and variations in practice using methods that are most likely to yield widely generalizable results that are directly relevant to clinical practice. Treatments used in transfusion medicine (TM) are among the most widely used in clinical practice, but are among the least well studied. High-quality evidence is lacking for most transfusion practices, with research efforts hampered by regulatory restrictions and ethical barriers. To begin addressing these issues, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a workshop in June 2011 to address the potential role of CER in the generation of high-quality evidence for TM decision making. Workshop goals were to: 1) evaluate the current landscape of clinical research, 2) review the potential application of CER methods to clinical research, 3) assess potential barriers to the use of CER methodology, 4) determine whether pilot or vanguard studies can be used to facilitate planning of future CER research, and 5) consider the need for and delivery of training in CER methods for researchers.

Many significant events have occurred in the recent past that beg a broad audience to address the question "What is pediatric transfusion medicine?" Herein, we list some of these events and their relevance below and attempt to provide an answer for this question. Indeed, several issues regarding the subspecialty of pediatric transfusion medicine (PTM) are particularly timely, and it appears that a critical mass, or a nidus capable of becoming a critical mass, is developing in PTM.