Literature DB >> 12379293

Quality of therapeutic plasma-requirements for marketing authorization.

Margarethe Heiden1, Rainer Seitz.   

Abstract

Fresh frozen plasma (FFP) contains higher levels of intact coagulation factors and coagulation and fibrinolysis inhibitors than solvent/detergent-treated plasma (SD plasma), and also greater residual cell contamination. SD plasma is a particle-free plasma of uniform quality. SD treatment, however, has the specific result of reducing the activities of some inhibitors. Both plasma types carry a minimal residual risk of transmitting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1/2, hepatitis virus B (HBV), and hepatitis virus C (HCV), but SDP is, in addition, also safe with respect to other lipid-enveloped viruses and perhaps with respect to hepatitis virus A (HAV), also due to its antibody (Ab) content. Future revisions of therapeutic plasma safety and quality standards should consider the following points:For FFP:reduce residual cell count in all FFP units to values below 5 x 10(6) leukocytes/l;screen donors for Parvovirus B19 genome and antibodies in order to establish a sufficiently large collection of genome-negative and antibody-positive donors whose FFP can be used for selected patients;For SDP:introduce pool testing for Parvovirus B19 genome; fix an upper limit for genome and a lower limit for antibody content;in addition to the standard quality control methods for therapeutic plasma, focus on assays to test for functionally intact proteinase inhibitors such as alpha(2)antiplasmin (alpha(2)AP) and alpha(1)proteinase inhibitor (alpha(1)PI) that are important for plasma indications. Commercially available kits may not be sufficient to show changes in inhibition kinetics. For both types:introduce an activation marker such as thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT) as a random test to monitor activation processes during withdrawal, separation, manufacturing, and storage;abolish inappropriate parameters like Antithrombin III (AT III) and coagulation factor XI that are not relevant for changes in plasma quality;finally, support every effort towards establishing an efficient documentation and reporting system on efficacy and side effects of plasma transfusions. Effective reporting alone might help to reveal deficiencies of specific plasma quality and to overcome them through modifications to manufacturing processes and testing, or by defining its indications more precisely.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12379293     DOI: 10.1016/s0049-3848(02)00152-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thromb Res        ISSN: 0049-3848            Impact factor:   3.944


  3 in total

Review 1.  [Fresh plasma and concentrates of clotting factors for therapy of perioperative coagulopathy: what is known?].

Authors:  B Heindl; M Spannagl
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  Biochemical and cellular markers differentiate recovered, in-line filtered plasma, and plasma obtained by apheresis methods.

Authors:  Jürgen Siekmann; Alfred Weber; Christoph Bauer; Peter L Turecek
Journal:  Vox Sang       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 2.996

3.  Plasma in the PICU: why and when should we transfuse?

Authors:  Sonia Labarinas; Delphine Arni; Oliver Karam
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2013-06-02       Impact factor: 6.925

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.