Tanhehco, Yvette C.

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.

ABSTRACT Apheresis medicine is a continually evolving field with numerous studies published each year. To help apheresis practitioners stay up to date with the current literature, members of the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Attending Physician Subcommittee identified and summarized 10 seminal articles published in 2025, from the field of apheresis medicine. PubMed was used to identify articles published in four topics including donor apheresis, therapeutic apheresis, apheresis education, and apheresis collection for cellular therapy. These articles met at least one of the following criteria: novel findings, practice‐altering outcomes, international in scope, randomized‐controlled trial, relevant to current clinical practice, and/or provide evidence for category III or IV indications based on the ASFA 9th Special Issue of the Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice‐Evidence‐Based Approach. Full length, peer‐reviewed manuscripts in English with data from human subjects were included while case reports, review articles, and meta‐analyses were excluded.

ABSTRACT The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Attending Physician Subcommittee of the Physicians' Committee performed an annual review of articles published in 2024 related to apheresis medicine. The 10 seminal apheresis articles selected by the subcommittee members are summarized in this review. PubMed was used to identify manuscripts published in 2024 in four areas of interest: donor apheresis, therapeutic apheresis, apheresis education, and apheresis for cellular therapy. Only full length, peer‐reviewed manuscripts in English with data from human subjects were included. Case reports, review articles, and meta‐analyses were excluded. Articles were considered seminal if they met at least one of the following previously established criteria: novel finding(s), practice‐altering outcomes, international in scope, randomized‐controlled trial, relevant to current clinical practice, and/or provide evidence for category III or IV indications based on the ASFA 9th special issue of the Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice‐Evidence‐Based Approach.

Abstract Background Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a hemoglobinopathy with limited treatment options. Genetic modification of the patient's own hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) offers an avenue to curative therapy using the patient's own cells. Many challenges exist in collecting sufficient numbers of starting material for manufacturing, beginning with the pre‐mobilization optimization of the patient to the mobilization, collection, and post‐collection phases. Study Design and Methods A working group within the Cellular Therapy Subcommittee of the American Society for Apheresis Clinical Applications Committee describes the challenges associated with apheresis collection of the starting material for gene therapy (GT) product manufacturing for patients with SCD and discusses potential strategies for overcoming these challenges. Results and Discussion Patients must undergo automated red blood cell exchange (RCE) to lower hemoglobin S in a relatively short window of time before apheresis collection of HSCs. The risks and benefits of transfusion as well as the logistics of providing adequate and appropriate blood products must be considered. Limited agents are available for mobilization of HSCs into the peripheral blood for collection and the timing of administration is short. Each collection cycle consists of RCE followed by at least three mobilization and apheresis collection events in addition to collecting backup cells. More than one cycle is typically needed to collect enough cells for GT drug product manufacturing. Optimization of patient factors and apheresis instrument parameters leads to better collection yields. Early and frequent ongoing coordination with all stakeholders involved is critical to developing personalized treatment plans for patients.

ABSTRACTIn this first annual review article, the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Attending Physician Subcommittee (APSc) of the Physicians' Committee (PC) curated key apheresis literature in 2023 and presented their choices for the 10 most seminal apheresis articles. PubMed and OVID search engines were used to identify manuscripts from four topic areas: donor apheresis, therapeutic apheresis, education, and cellular therapy. To further identify seminal criteria, they had to present at least one of the following: novel findings, practice‐altering outcomes, international scope, randomized controlled trial, relevant to current clinical practice, and/or provide evidence for category III or IV indications based on the ASFA ninth special issue of the Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice‐Evidence‐Based Approach. Inclusion criteria included: full‐length, peer‐reviewed, English language, and human subjects. Case reports, review articles, and meta‐analyses were excluded.

Abstract Objectives The red blood cell (RBC) D antigen is highly immunogenic, and anti-D alloimmunization can cause hemolytic transfusion reactions and hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. This study examined how RhD-negative patients who required packed RBCs (pRBCs) were handled during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether policies and practices on RhD-positive pRBC allocation to RhD-negative patients changed. Methods The Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB) Clinical Hemotherapy Subsection distributed a 17-question survey to physician AABB members to elucidate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the policies and practices governing the provision of RhD-positive pRBCs to RhD-negative patients. Results There were 215 respondents who started the survey, but only 104 answered all the questions. Most institutional policies (130/155 [83.87%]) and personal practices (100/126 [79.37%]) on pRBC selection did not change during the COVID-19 pandemic. The practice of switching back to RhD-negative pRBCs after administration of RhD-positive pRBCs is variable. More than half of respondents (56/104 [53.85%]) reported offering Rh immunoglobulin to any Rh-negative patients who received RhD-positive pRBCs. Conclusions Despite RhD-negative pRBC supply challenges, most institutional policies and personal practices on when to provide RhD-positive pRBCs to RhD-negative patients did not change during the pandemic.

AbstractBackgroundThe COVID‐19 pandemic affected healthcare delivery across all specialties including apheresis. To describe the changes in apheresis service practices that occurred during the pandemic, the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Apheresis Medicine Attending Physician Subcommittee conducted a survey study.Study Design and MethodsA 32‐question survey was designed and distributed to 400 ASFA physician members on September 7, 2022. Attending physicians responded to questions about whether and how apheresis service practices changed during the COVID‐19 pandemic compared with the time period prior to the pandemic in terms of: (1) procedure types and volumes, (2) patient consultation workflow, and (3) the use of telemedicine. Descriptive analyses were reported as number and frequency of responses.ResultsThe survey response rate was 13.8% (55/400). Of these respondents, 96.4% (53/55) were attending physicians. The majority of respondents (42/53, 79.2%) indicated that the types of procedures performed during COVID‐19 compared to pre‐pandemic did not change. Most frequently for apheresis procedure volume, respondents reported: no change in their monthly inpatient volume (21/47, 44.7%) and a decrease in their monthly outpatient volume (28/46, 60.9%). Prior to COVID‐19, 75.0% (30/40) of respondents performed consultations at bedside for inpatients and 67.4% (29/43) performed consultations at bedside for outpatients. Bedside consultations decreased in both settings during the pandemic but were still most frequently performed by attending physicians. At the same time, the use of telemedicine increased for 15.4% of survey respondents during COVID‐19.ConclusionSome, but not all, respondents observed or made changes to their apheresis service during the COVID‐19 pandemic. A subset of changes, such as increased utilization of telemedicine, may persist.