Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30098394›Full record

ArticleBiology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation2019

Prospective Evaluation of a Practical Guideline for Managing Positive Sterility Test Results in Cell Therapy Products.

Sandhya R Panch, Thejaswi Bikkani, Vanessa Vargas, Jolynn Procter, James W Atkins, Virginia Guptill, Karen M Frank, Anna F Lau, David F Stroncek

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Sterility Testing for Hematopoietic Stem Cells.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sandhya R PanchDepartment of Transfusion Medicine, Cell Processing Section, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: sandhya.panch@nih.gov.
Thejaswi BikkaniDepartment of Transfusion Medicine, Cell Processing Section, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Vanessa VargasDepartment of Transfusion Medicine, Cell Processing Section, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Jolynn ProcterDepartment of Transfusion Medicine, Cell Processing Section, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
James W AtkinsDepartment of Transfusion Medicine, Cell Processing Section, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Virginia GuptillOffice of Research Support and Compliance, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Karen M FrankDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Anna F LauDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
David F StroncekDepartment of Transfusion Medicine, Cell Processing Section, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

Funding

Novel Diagnostic Platforms for Sterility Testing of Cellular Therapies and Biopharmaceutical ProductsZIACL060092 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI LAU, ANNA · 2014 to 2025
$0k
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CL999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Product safety assurance is crucial for the clinical use of manufactured cellular therapies. A rational approach for delivering products that fail release criteria (because of potentially false-positive sterility results) is important to avoid unwarranted wastage of highly personalized and costly therapies in critically ill patients where benefits may outweigh risk. Accurate and timely interpretation of microbial sterility assays represents a major challenge in cell therapies. We developed a systematic protocol for the assessment of positive microbial sterility test results using retrospective data from 2007 to 2016. This protocol was validated and applied prospectively between October 2016 and September 2017 to 13 products from which positive sterility results had been reported. Viable and nonviable environmental monitoring (EM) data were collected concurrently as part of a facility control assessment. Three of 13 (23%) positive sterility results were attributable to bone marrow collections that had been contaminated with skin flora during harvest; all were infused without pertinent infectious sequelae. Of the remaining 10, 1 was deemed a true positive and was discarded before infusion, whereas 9 were classified as false positives attributed to laboratory sampling and/or culturing processes. Three products deemed false positive were infused and 6 were withheld because of patient issues unrelated to microbial sterility results. No postinfusion-associated infectious complications were documented. Almost half of the positive EM findings were skin flora. Paired detection of an organism in both product and associated EM was identified in 1 case. Application of our validated protocol to positive product sterility test results allowed for systematic data compilation for regulatory evaluation and provided comprehensive information to clinical investigators to ensure timely and strategic management for product recipients.

Indexed as

Blood CellsCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyDisinfectionQuality ControlHumansRetrospective StudiesCellular therapiesEnvironmental monitoringProspective studySterility testing

Identifiers

PMID30098394
PMCPMC6310647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.