Trial reportTransfusion2026
Next generation spray-dried on-demand plasma: A multicenter, randomized, dose-escalation, first-in-human safety study.
Trial report in Transfusion, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrehospital plasma transfusion for patients at risk of hemorrhagic shock reduces mortality, but cold-chain and logistical constraints limit product availability. This study reports the first-in-human clinical evaluation of a new spray-dried plasma product, Frontline On-Demand Plasma (ODP).
methodsTwenty-four healthy volunteers were sequentially enrolled into three dose-escalation cohorts. Autologous apheresis plasma was processed into plasma frozen within 24 h (PF24), with half of each collection manufactured into ODP. Cohort 1 (n = 6) received 200 mL ODP; Cohort 2 (n = 6) received 400 mL; and Cohort 3 (n = 12) was a randomized, double-blind crossover comparing 800 mL ODP with 800 mL PF24. Subjects were monitored for 28 days after each infusion. The primary endpoint was treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).
resultsSystem verification data demonstrated preservation of protein content in spray-dried plasma. All 24 participants completed the study and infusions were well tolerated. Thirty-five TEAEs occurred in 18 subjects; 34 were unrelated or unlikely related to infusion. In Cohort 3, TEAEs occurred at similar frequencies after ODP and PF24. Headache was the most common TEAE. Minor coagulation parameter changes were observed but were not clinically significant. Out-of-range coagulation values were evenly distributed between treatment groups.
conclusionsSpray-dried plasma demonstrated a safety profile comparable to standard frozen plasma, with no thromboembolic events observed. Its durable plastic packaging and rapid reconstitution support its potential for widespread use in out-of-hospital care, including emergency and austere environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.