The cord blood processing method PrepaCyte-CB has been shown to engraft more quickly during the vital stage of post-transplant recovery than any other processing method. At the 15th Annual International Cord Blood Symposium in San Diego, California, in June 2017, the St. Louis Cord Blood Bank presented the median time it took patients infused with cord blood using either its Hetastarch or PrepaCyte-CB processing method to reach an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 500.
PrepaCyte-CB was found to engraft a full four days more quickly than the Hetastarch processing method (16 days versus 20 days) and has shown to be just as safe to the patient.1 Combining this data with those of other public data sources, PrepaCyte-CB was found to engraft more quickly than any other processing method.
The St. Louis Cord Blood Bank adopted the PrepaCyte-CB processing technology in 2009 following a thorough evaluation and side-by-side comparison of the major processing technologies. It reported preliminary findings at AABB meetings in 2010 and 2011.1,2
Its results yielded a positive trend toward increased post-thaw total nucleated cell count (TNC), TNC percent recovery, CD34+ count and colony-forming unit (CFU) cell count with excellent engraftment outcomes when transplanted into patients. Total CFU numbers after thawing CB units have been shown to correlate more strongly with rapid engraftment and survival post-transplant than other metric such as total nucleated cell (TNC) counts or CD34+ cell numbers.3
PrepaCyte-CB’s was shown to consistently remove up to 99% of RBCs from each cord blood unit. The benefits of red blood cell reduction at the time of transplantation are well-documented including the reduced potential for transfusion reactions and acute renal failure and sepsis because of free hemoglobin.
History of PrepaCyte-CB Processing Technology
PrepaCyte-CB is a sterile 510K approved, closed manual processing system that yields consistent recovery percentages regardless of volume. It maximizes cell recovery while reducing the risk of contamination and errors in identification. It has been shown to recover the greatest number of hematopoietic stem cells while depleting the greatest number of red blood cell contaminants.
PrepaCyte-CB-processed samples also yield the highest clonogenic potential14 after cryopreservation. PrepaCyte-CB leads to a better separation by sedimentation of the red blood cells while keeping the white cells suspended in the plasma. This separation allows for the capture of more stem cells and fewer red blood cells.
Cryo-Cell International is the only private bank in the U.S. to offer the PrepaCyte-CB cord blood banking technology. After initial licensing the technology for its use, Cryo-Cell purchased the rights to PrepaCyte-CB in 2015 but still makes it available to public cord blood banks and other private banks outside the U.S. As part of the assurance Cryo-Cell has on the PrepaCyte-CB–processing method, it offers its clients a $100,000 guarantee that the cord blood will engraft if used in a transplant.
1. Comparison of Processing Reagents (Hespan and PrepaCyte-CB®) in Preparation of Cord Blood Units at the Saint Louis Cord Blood Bank Nadimpalli, Saketh et al. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Volume 23, Issue 3, S174–S175.
2. Henderson, C., et al., ISCT Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, 2010.
3. Regan, D., et al., AABB Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 2011.
4. Prasad VK, et al. Blood 112:2979-2989, 20085. Assessment of Hetastarch and PrepaCyte-CB in Transplanted Cord Blood Units. Poster presented at: ICBS 2017. 15th Annual International Cord Blood Symposium; 2017 June 8–10; San Diego, California.
6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Retrieved June 15, 2017, from https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/CellularGeneTherapyProducts/ApprovedProducts/UCM279612.pdf.
7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Retrieved June 15, 2017, from https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/CellularGeneTherapyProducts/ApprovedProducts/UCM322732.pdf.
8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Retrieved June 15, 2017, from https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/CellularGeneTherapyProducts/ApprovedProducts/UCM483861.pdf.
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Retrieved June 15, 2017, from https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/CellularGeneTherapyProducts/ApprovedProducts/UCM305761.pdf.
10. The International Society for Cellular Therapy, Telgraft Quarterly Newsletter, Vol. 15 No. 4, Winter 2008.
11. Donna Regan, Jonathan Wofford, Kathleen Fortune, Christianna Henderson, and Salem Akel. Clinical Evaluation of an Alternative Cord Blood Processing Method. SLCBB data presented at the AABB Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 2011.
12. Alcaina, P. Solves, V. Mirabet, D. Planelles, A. Blanquer, L. Larrea, and R. Roig. “Comparison between Two Automatic Devices for Cord Blood Volume Reduction.” 37th Annual Meeting of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT), Paris, France, Apr. 2011.
13. Kim, C., Wilke-Douglas, M., Sivilotti, M. (2015). “Meta-Analysis of the AXP® and Sepax® Automated Cord Blood Processing Systems.” Cesca Therapeutics, 380118[A].
14. Basford, C., Forraz, N., Habibollah, S., Hanger, K., & McGuckin, C. (2010). The Cord Blood Separation League Table: a Comparison of the Major Clinical Grade Harvesting Techniques for Cord Blood Stem Cells. International Journal of Stem Cells, 3(1), 32–45.