Transportation of cellular therapy products: report of a survey by the cellular therapies team of the Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) collaborative

• Published in: Vox Sanguinis 2010-08, Vol.99 (2), p.168-173
• Main Authors: Pamphilon, D. H., Selogie, E., Szczepiorkowski, Z. M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Antigens, CD34 - chemistry; Apheresis; Autografts; Biological products; Biological Therapy - methods; Biological Therapy - standards; Biomedical research; Blood Preservation - methods; Blood Preservation - standards; Blood products; Blood transfusions; Buffy coat; CD34 antigen; CD34 positive cells; Cell density; Cell Transplantation - methods; Cell Transplantation - standards; Cellular biology; cellular therapy products; Cord blood; CTP; Cytotoxicity; Data Collection; Data processing; haemopoietic stem cell transplant; Hematopoietic Stem Cells - cytology; Hemopoiesis; Humans; Internet; Leukocytes (neutrophilic); Lymphocytes T; Macrophages; Mesenchyme; Natural killer cells; shipping; Stem cells; Sterility; Temperature effects; Transfusion; transportation; viability
• ISSN: 0042-9007; 1423-0410
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2010.01329.x

Background and Objectives  Most cell therapy products (CTP) are infused or processed shortly after collection but in some cases this may be delayed for up to 48 h. A number of variables such as temperature and cell concentration are of critical importance for the integrity of CTP during this time. Materials and Methods  We conducted a survey of cellular therapy laboratories to ascertain current practices for CTP transportation. Results There were 194 respondents of whom 90% shipped or received CTP – 84% allogeneic, 71% autologous and 62% therapeutic cells. Processing facilities shipped or received the following products – hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC), Marrow 73%; HPC, Apheresis 90%; HPC, Cord Blood 54% and others 14%. Other CTP included donor lymphocytes, mesenchymal stem cells (MSC), natural killer cells, buffy coat neutrophils and virus‐specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL). More than 70% of respondents believed that it was acceptable for CTP to be held for up to 2 h without checking the temperature or cell density and a similar proportion agreed that putting products in containers to control parameters such as temperature within this time period was unnecessary. The majority of centres shipped or received between 1 and 10 CTP annually and 66% received products taking more than 2 h to ship. Of these, 82% specified the conditions for temperature in transit whilst 57% monitored temperature in transit and 74% of these used a data logger. The temperature range most commonly specified was 18–24°C. The majority of processing facilities did not request an adjustment to the cell density even for products taking more than 2 h to reach their facility. More than 90% of respondents tested HPC for CD34+ cells, viability and sterility; 40–48% performed colony‐forming unit–granulocyte macrophage (CFU–GM) analysis. Only viability was thought by > 50% of respondents to be impacted by temperature, cell density and other parameters. Conclusion Understanding current practice will help in the design of future studies for CTP storage and transportation.