DeBaun, Michael R.

Abstract Globally, an estimated 300 million individuals have sickle cell trait (SCT), the carrier state for sickle cell disease (SCD). Although SCD is associated with increased morbidity and shortened life span, SCT has a life span comparable with that of the general population. However, “sickle cell crisis” has been used as a cause of death for decedents with SCT in reports of exertion-related death in athletes, military personnel, and individuals in police custody. To appraise this practice, the American Society of Hematology convened an expert panel of hematologists and forensic pathologists to conduct a systematic review of the literature relating to the occurrence of sickle cell pain crises and exertion-related mortality in people with SCT. Multiple bibliographic databases were searched with controlled vocabulary and keywords related to “sickle cell trait,” “vaso-occlusive pain,” and “death,” yielding 18 of 1474 citations. Independent pairs of reviewers selected studies and extracted data. We found no studies comparing uncomplicated acute pain crises in individuals with SCT and SCD. Additionally, no study was identified to support the occurrence of acute vaso-occlusive pain crises in individuals with SCT. Furthermore, this systematic review did not identify any evidence to support an association between SCT and sudden unexplained death in the absence of exertion-related rhabdomyolysis. We conclude that there are no data to support the diagnosis of acute vaso-occlusive sickle cell crisis as a cause of death in SCT, nor does the available evidence support the use of SCT as a cause of exertion-related death without rhabdomyolysis.

Abstract Background: Central nervous system (CNS) complications are among the most common, devastating sequelae of sickle cell disease (SCD) occurring throughout the lifespan. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology are intended to support the SCD community in decisions about prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the most common neurological morbidities in SCD. Methods: The Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE evidence-to-decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations. Results: The panel placed a higher value on maintaining cognitive function than on being alive with significantly less than baseline cognitive function. The panel developed 19 recommendations with evidence-based strategies to prevent, diagnose, and treat CNS complications of SCD in low-middle– and high-income settings. Conclusions: Three of 19 recommendations immediately impact clinical care. These recommendations include: use of transcranial Doppler ultrasound screening and hydroxyurea for primary stroke prevention in children with hemoglobin SS (HbSS) and hemoglobin Sβ0 (HbSβ0) thalassemia living in low-middle–income settings; surveillance for developmental delay, cognitive impairments, and neurodevelopmental disorders in children; and use of magnetic resonance imaging of the brain without sedation to detect silent cerebral infarcts at least once in early-school-age children and once in adults with HbSS or HbSβ0 thalassemia. Individuals with SCD, their family members, and clinicians should become aware of and implement these recommendations to reduce the burden of CNS complications in children and adults with SCD.

Abstract The American Society of Hematology (ASH) convened 5 guideline panels to develop clinical practice recommendations addressing 5 management areas of highest importance to individuals living with sickle cell disease: pain, cerebrovascular complications, pulmonary and kidney complications, transfusion, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Panels were multidisciplinary and consisted of patient representatives, content experts, and methodologists. The Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center conducted systematic reviews based on a priori selected questions. In this exposition, we describe the process used by ASH, including the GRADE approach (Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for rating certainty of the evidence and the GRADE Evidence to Decision Framework. We also describe several unique challenges faced by the guideline panels and the specific innovations and solutions used to address them, including a curriculum to train patients to engage in guideline development, dealing with the opioid crisis, and working with indirect and noncomparative evidence.