Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36329460›Full record

ArticleJournal of translational medicine2022

Sepax-2 cell processing device: a study assessing reproducibility of concentrating thawed hematopoietic progenitor cells.

Bechara Mfarrej, Olivier Vicari, Sarah Ouffai, Carine Malenfant, Angela Granata, Sophie Thevenet, Christian Chabannon, Claude Lemarié, Boris Calmels

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bechara MfarrejCentre de Thérapie Cellulaire, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.
Olivier VicariCentre de Thérapie Cellulaire, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.
Sarah OuffaiCentre de Thérapie Cellulaire, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.
Carine MalenfantCentre de Thérapie Cellulaire, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.
Angela GranataCentre de Thérapie Cellulaire, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.
Sophie ThevenetCentre de Thérapie Cellulaire, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.
Christian ChabannonCentre de Thérapie Cellulaire, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.
Claude LemariéCentre de Thérapie Cellulaire, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.
Boris CalmelsCentre de Thérapie Cellulaire, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France. calmelsb@ipc.unicancer.fr.
Institut Paoli-Calmettes · FRAix-Marseille Université · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutologous hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) transplantation is currently the standard of care for a fraction of patients with newly diagnosed myelomas and relapsed or refractory lymphomas. After high-dose chemotherapy, cryopreserved HPC are either infused directly after bedside thawing or washed and concentrated before infusion. We previously reported on the comparability of washing/concentrating HPC post-thaw vs. infusion without manipulation in terms of hematopoietic engraftment, yet settled for the prior favoring cell debris and DMSO removal. For almost two decades, automation of this critical step of washing/concentrating cells has been feasible. As part of continuous process verification, we aim to evaluate reproducibility of this procedure by assessing intra-batch and inter-batch variability upon concentration of thawed HPC products using the Sepax 2 S-100 cell separation system.

methodsAutologous HPC collected from the same patient were thawed and washed either in two batches processed within a 3-4 h interval and immediately infused on the same day (intra-batch, n = 45), or in two batches on different days (inter-batch, n = 49) for those patients requiring 2 or more high-dose chemotherapy cycles. Quality attributes assessed were CD34+ cell recovery, viability and CD45+ viability; CFU assay was only performed for allogeneic grafts.

resultsIntra-batch and inter-batch median CD34+ cell recovery was comparable (75% vs. 73% and 77% vs. 77%, respectively). Similarly, intra-batch and inter-batch median CD45+ cell viability was comparable (79% vs. 80% and 79% vs. 78%, respectively). Bland-Altman analysis describing agreement between batches per patient revealed a bias close to 0%. Additionally, lower HPC recoveries noted in batch 1 were noted as well in batch 2, regardless of the CD34+ cell dose before cryopreservation, both intra- and inter-batch, suggesting that the quality of the collected product plays an important role in downstream recovery. Intrinsic (high mature and immature granulocyte content) and extrinsic (delay between apheresis and cryopreservation) variables of the collected product resulted in a significantly lower CD45+ viability and CD34+ cell recovery upon thawing/washing.

conclusionsAutomated post-thaw HPC concentration provides reproducible cell recoveries and viabilities between different batches. Implications of this work go beyond HPC to concentrate cell suspension/products during manufacturing of cell and gene therapy products.

Indexed as

Hematopoietic Stem CellsHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationAntigens, CD34Cell SurvivalCryopreservationHumansReproducibility of ResultsTransplantation, AutologousAntigens, CD34Cell therapy productDMSOHematopoietic progenitor cellsReproducibilitySepax-2

Identifiers

PMID36329460
PMCPMC9632571
OpenAlexW4308436134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.