Lee, Grace M.

ABSTRACT Prior surveys of chronic automated red blood cell exchange (RCE) for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) have identified considerable procedural variability, especially with the use of isovolemic hemodilution red blood cell exchange (IHD‐RCE). We conducted a survey of chronic RCE practices among American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) members to identify opportunities for practice harmonization and future studies. The ASFA SCD Research Subcommittee developed a 72‐item survey of chronic RCE practices, with a focus on IHD‐RCE. The survey was validated internally and distributed by email to all ASFA members from September 2024 to February 2025. One survey response from each institution was retained for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were performed. Sixty‐two survey responses, including three from international institutions, were retained for analysis. Sixty‐one percent of respondents (38/62) reported using at least one fixed RCE target, with end hematocrit being the most common fixed parameter (40%, 25/62), followed by fraction of cells remaining (31%, 19/62) and hemoglobin S% (27%, 17/62). Most respondents (60%, 37/61) performed IHD‐RCE at their institution, though other details such as the minimum hematocrit, exclusion criteria, and response to adverse effects were variable. Consistent pre‐ and post‐RCE laboratory monitoring practices were reported. Consistent with earlier surveys, procedural variability in chronic RCE practices for patients with SCD is observed. This highlights opportunities to compare outcomes where practice variability exists. Consensus guidelines based on institutional practices with optimal outcomes should be developed.

OBJECTIVE The optimal dose for triazoles in pediatric patients may substantially vary given the dynamic changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, based on disease severity. Therapeutic drug monitoring has been a valuable tool to help guide management and avoid potential toxicities associated with treatment of invasive fungal infections (IFIs). Goal azole serum concentrations are based on specific drug, indication, and minimum inhibitory concentration when known. This study aimed to determine the optimal pediatric azole doses needed to achieve targeted serum concentrations of isavuconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole. METHODS This is a single center, retrospective chart review of pediatric patients who received isavuconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, or voriconazole between January 1, 2011, and August 31, 2021. RESULTS A total of 273 pediatric patients received isavuconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, or voriconazole in the inpatient or outpatient setting during the study period. Of the 273 patients, only 122 met criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Eighty-three percent of patients reached a goal serum concentration. Patients younger than 12 years required a higher dose (mg/kg/day) to achieve goal serum concentrations. Patients who received an azole in the form of an oral tablet or intravenously were more likely to reach a goal concentration than those not receiving these formulations. Median time to goal concentration occurred at 20 days for isavuconazole, 34 days for itraconazole, 11 days for posaconazole, and 10 days for voriconazole. CONCLUSIONS Higher starting azole doses are needed to obtain goal concentrations quickly, especially for children younger than 12 years.

Abstract Background Since its emergence in late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions, such as coughing, and care activities, such as aerosol-generating procedures, likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of the personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. The purpose of the current study was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists, with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations, including 2 updated recommendations and 1 new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE by HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly transmissible virus that can infect healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Specific care activities, in particular, aerosol-generating procedures, may have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 has created significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used to protect HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care are needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. Objective Our objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included front-line clinicians, infectious diseases specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of preventive care, public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine, and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then, a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP who provide care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. Significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 remain, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence.

Abstract Abstract 1159 Background. Heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an immune disorder where platelets are activated by antibodies to a complex of platelet factor 4 antigen and heparin (PF4/H), leading to thrombocytopenia (HIT) and, potentially, thrombosis (HITT). Documentation of anti-PF4/H antibodies in addition to the appropriate clinical findings is essential for making a diagnosis of HIT. In the post-cardiac bypass surgery setting, however, the frequency of elevated anti-PF4/H antibodies is high, whereas the frequency of clinical HIT or HITT is relatively uncommon. Several studies have shown that the presence of anti-PF4/H antibodies may be associated with an increased frequency of adverse outcomes, even in the absence of clinical HIT. The primary objective of this study was to determine the relationship between a positive PF4/H antibody in the postoperative setting with adverse thromboembolic events occurring up to 3 months after cardiac surgery. Methods. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were not going to be treated with chronic anticoagulation postoperatively were eligible for this multi-center prospective cohort study. Data were collected daily during hospitalization, and then at 30 and 90 days after surgery using a structured interview format with a standardized questionnaire that included all thrombotic as well as hemorrhagic events, platelet counts, and utilization of antithrombotics in the postoperative setting. The primary outcome variable was a composite endpoint comprising arterial and venous thrombotic events and other miscellaneous events compatible with HIT, as well as death attributable to an event compatible with HIT. Citrated plasma was collected at baseline, pre-discharge (∼4–5 days after surgery), and the 30 day follow-up visit, processed, and stored at −80°C for testing. Laboratory analyses included an anti-PF4/H antibody ELISA (GTI, Waukesha, WI) on all samples, a high-heparin confirmatory test on samples with an OD reading >0.40, and a serotonin release assay (SRA) on all postoperative samples with an OD reading >0.40. A sample size of 800 patients was estimated in order to detect a 3% difference in thromboembolic events assuming a 2 to 10-fold increase risk attributable to seropositivity. Chi-squared testing was used to test the relationship between the primary outcome and postoperative anti-PF4/H levels. Results. Informed consent was obtained from 1030 eligible patients between August 2006 and May 2009, and laboratory and follow-up data were analyzable for 1016 patients. Thirty-day antibody data were available for 888 patients, and fully complete laboratory and 90-day follow-up data were available for 815 patients. The average age was 62 ± 12 years, and 73% of participants were male. A total of 769 patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting and 237 underwent valve repair or replacement. During the entire study period, there were 17 (1.7%) deaths, 46 thromboembolic events in 44 patients (4.3%), and 25 hemorrhagic events in 24 patients (2.4%). Using an OD cutoff of 0.40 for the ELISA, 339 patients (33.4%) were positive for anti-PF4/H antibodies at the time of discharge, and 630 patients (62%) were positive by day 30. There was no correlation between seropositivity for anti-PF4/H antibodies at the day of discharge or at day 30 and the primary outcome (p=0.47 and 0.73, respectively). Incorporating the high-heparin confirmatory step did not improve the relationship between positive antibody results and the primary outcome. Using a higher cut-off value for the anti-PF4/H antibody ELISA of 1.0 decreased the number of patients with positive results (96 patients at the time of discharge [9.4%] and 221 patients at the 30-day follow-up visit [21.8%]), but this did not improve the relationship between antibody positivity at the day of discharge or day 30 and the primary clinical endpoint, since most patients with the primary endpoint had an ELISA OD below 1.0 (75th percentile of 0.90; 90th percentile of 1.22). Similarly, using the SRA did not identify a relationship between assay results and outcome. Conclusions. The presence of anti-PF4/H antibodies in the postoperative setting following cardiac bypass surgery is not associated with an increased risk for thromboembolic complications. Positive anti-PF4/H results in this clinical setting should be interpreted with caution and only in the context of clinical suspicion for HIT. Disclosures: Ortel: Instrumentation Laboratory: Consultancy; Eisai: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Welsby:CSL Behring: Speaker; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NovoNordisk: Principal Investigator. Heit:Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Ortho-McNeil Janssen: Honoraria; Covidien: Honoraria.