FISH analysis in addition to G-band karyotyping: Utility in evaluation of myelodysplastic syndromes?

Cytogenetic analysis provides important diagnostic and prognostic information for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Prior studies, mostly comprised of small sample sizes, have reported conflicting results while evaluating the usefulness of FISH in addition to G-band karyotyping in MDS. In the current study, the utility of performing a tailored FISH panel, in addition to G-band karyotyping was evaluated in a series of 110 MDS patients diagnosed at our institute. Using our FISH panel, clonal cytogenetic abnormalities were detected in 3/8 (38%) of MDS cases with karyotype failure and in 5/54 (9%) cases with normal G-band karyotypes, all the latter had intermediate or high grade MDS. Of the cases with abnormal G-band karyotypes, 6/48 (13%) showed discrepancies between FISH and G-band results, however, FISH analysis only lead to reassignment of karyotypic abnormalities to different chromosomes, MDS cytogenetic risk stratification was not altered. Our findings suggest that FISH testing is informative only in MDS cases with karyotype failure and intermediate-high grade MDS cases with normal G-band karyotype and has limited utility in cases that have normal G-band karyotypes and morphologic features of low grade MDS or in cases with abnormal G-band karyotypes

Hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn due to Rh(D) incompatibility: A preventable disease that still produces significant morbidity and mortality in children.

In the mid-20th century, Hemolytic Disease of the Fetus and Newborn, caused by maternal alloimmunization to the Rh(D) blood group antigen expressed by fetal red blood cells (i.e., "Rh disease"), was a major cause of fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. However, with the regulatory approval, in 1968, of IgG anti-Rh(D) immunoprophylaxis to prevent maternal sensitization, the prospect of eradicating Rh disease was at hand. Indeed, the combination of antenatal and post-partum immunoprophylaxis is ~99% effective at preventing maternal sensitization to Rh(D). To investigate global compliance with this therapeutic intervention, we used an epidemiological approach to estimate the current annual number of pregnancies worldwide involving an Rh(D)-negative mother and an Rh(D)-positive fetus. The annual number of doses of anti-Rh(D) IgG required for successful immunoprophylaxis for these cases was then calculated and compared with an estimate of the annual number of doses of anti-Rh(D) produced and provided worldwide. Our results suggest that ~50% of the women around the world who require this type of immunoprophylaxis do not receive it, presumably due to a lack of awareness, availability, and/or affordability, thereby putting hundreds of thousands of fetuses and neonates at risk for Rh disease each year. The global failure to provide this generally acknowledged standard-of-care to prevent Rh disease, even 50 years after its availability, contributes to an enormous, continuing burden of fetal and neonatal disease and provides a critically important challenge to the international health care system

Center-Related Bias in MELD Scores Within a Liver Transplant UNOS Region: A Call for Standardization

BACKGROUND: MELD score-based liver transplant allocation was implemented as a fair and objective measure to prioritize patients based upon disease severity. Accuracy and reproducibility of MELD is an essential assumption to ensure fairness in organ access. We hypothesized that variability or bias in laboratory methodology between centers could alter allocation scores for individuals on the transplant waiting list. METHODS: Aliquots of 30 patient serum samples were analyzed for creatinine, bilirubin, and sodium in all transplant centers within United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) region 9. Descriptive statistics, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and linear mixed effects regression were used to determine the relationship between center, bilirubin and calculated MELD-Na. RESULTS: The mean MELD-Na score per sample ranged from 14 to 38. The mean range in MELD-Na per sample was 3 points, but 30% of samples had a range of 4-6 points. Correlation plots and intraclass correlation coefficient analysis confirmed bilirubin interfered with creatinine, with worsening agreement in creatinine at high bilirubin levels. Center and bilirubin were independently associated with creatinine reported in mixed effects models. Unbiased hierarchical clustering suggested samples from specific centers have consistently higher creatinine and MELD-Na values. CONCLUSIONS: Despite implementation of creatinine standardization, centers within one UNOS region report clinically significant differences in MELD-Na on an identical sample, with differences of up to 6 points in high MELD-Na patients. The bias in MELD-Na scores based upon center choice within a region should be addressed in the current efforts to eliminate disparities in liver transplant access

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Objectives The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in hospitalized adults with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial Design This is a prospective, single-center, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial that is blinded to participants and clinical outcome assessor. Participants Eligible participants include adults (≥ 18 years) with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR test of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab within 14 days of randomization, evidence of infiltrates on chest radiography, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤ 94% on room air, and/or need for supplemental oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation, who are willing and able to provide written informed consent prior to performing study procedures or who have a legally authorized representative available to do so. Exclusion criteria include participation in another clinical trial of anti-viral agent(s)* for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), receipt of any anti-viral agent(s)* with possible activity against SARS-CoV-2 <24 hours prior to plasma infusion, mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]) for ≥ 5 days, severe multi-organ failure, history of allergic reactions to transfused blood products per NHSN/CDC criteria, known IgA deficiency, and pregnancy. Included participants will be hospitalized at the time of randomization and plasma infusion. *Use of remdesivir as treatment for COVID-19 is permitted. The study will be undertaken at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, USA. Intervention and comparator The investigational treatment is anti-SARS-CoV-2 human convalescent plasma. To procure the investigational treatment, volunteers who recovered from COVID-19 will undergo testing to confirm the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody to the spike trimer at a 1:400 dilution. Donors will also be screened for transfusion-transmitted infections (e.g. HIV, HBV, HCV, WNV, HTLV-I/II, T. cruzi, ZIKV). If donors have experienced COVID-19 symptoms within 28 days, they will be screened with a nasopharyngeal swab to confirm they are SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative. Plasma will be collected using standard apheresis technology by the New York Blood Center. Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive one unit (200 – 250 mL) of anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus one unit (200 – 250 mL) of the earliest available control plasma. The control plasma cannot be tested for presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prior to the transfusion, but will be tested for anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibody after the transfusion to allow for a retrospective per-protocol analysis. Main outcomes The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement. This is defined as time from randomization to either discharge from the hospital or improvement by one point on the following seven-point ordinal scale, whichever occurs first. 1. Not hospitalized with resumption of normal activities 2. Not hospitalized, but unable to resume normal activities 3. Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen 4. Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen 5. Hospitalized, requiring high-flow oxygen therapy or non-invasive mechanical ventilation 6. Hospitalized, requiring ECMO, invasive mechanical ventilation, or both 7. Death This scale, designed to assess clinical status over time, was based on that recommended by the World Health Organization for use in determining efficacy end-points in clinical trials in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A recent clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of lopinavir- ritonavir for patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 used a similar ordinal scale, as have recent clinical trials of novel therapeutics for severe influenza, including a post-hoc analysis of a trial evaluating immune plasma. The primary safety endpoints are cumulative incidence of grade 3 and 4 adverse events and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events during the study period. Randomization Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus control plasma using a web-based randomization platform. Treatment assignments will be generated using randomly permuted blocks of different sizes to minimize imbalance while also minimizing predictability. Blinding (masking) The study participants and the clinicians who will evaluate post-treatment outcomes will be blinded to group assignment. The blood bank and the clinical research team will not be blinded to group assignment. Numbers to be randomized (sample size) We plan to enroll 129 participants, with 86 in the anti-SARS-CoV-2 arm, and 43 in the control arm. Among the participants, we expect ~70% or n = 72 will achieve clinical improvement. This will yield an 80% power for a one-sided Wald test at 0.15 level of significance under the proportional hazards model with a hazard ratio of 1.5. Trial Status Protocol AAAS9924, Version 17APR2020, 4/17/2020 Start of recruitment: April 20, 2020 Recruitment is ongoing. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04359810 Date of trial registration: April 24, 2020 Retrospectively registered Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol