Lu, Wen

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.

AbstractBackgroundCurrent Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB) standards require transfusion services to have a policy on Rh immune globulin (RhIG) immunoprophylaxis for when RhD‐negative patients are exposed to RhD‐positive red cells. This is a survey of AABB‐accredited transfusion services in the United States (US) regarding institutional policies and practices on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐negative patients receive RhD‐positive (i.e., RhD‐incompatible) packed red blood cell (pRBC) and platelet transfusions.ResultsApproximately half of the respondents (50.4%, 116/230) have policies on RhIG administration after RhD‐incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, while others had policies for only pRBC (13.5%, 31/230) or only platelet (17.8%, 41/230) transfusions, but not both. In contrast, 18.3% (42/230) report that their institution has no written policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐incompatible transfusions. Most institutions (70.2%, 99/141) do not have policies addressing safety parameters to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required to prevent RhD alloimmunization after RhD‐incompatible pRBC transfusions.DiscussionWith approximately half of US AABB‐accredited institutions report having policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after both RhD‐incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, some institutions may not be in compliance with AABB standards. Further, most with policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐incompatible pRBC transfusion do not have written safeguards to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required.ConclusionThis survey underscores the diverse and inadequate institutional policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD exposure in Rh‐negative patients via transfusion. This observation identifies an opportunity to improve transfusion safety.

AbstractBackgroundImmunoglobulin (IG) therapy is widely used to treat primary and secondary immune deficiencies and as immunomodulatory agent for various disorders. There is great concern that shortages of IG may rise, potentially affecting medical treatment options.Study Design and MethodsAn international survey was developed to study how intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIGs) are used and managed within hospitals in case of shortages. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted by the Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) Collaborative. The survey was directed to hospital pharmacists and blood bank transfusion professionals and disseminated through members of the BEST Collaborative network.ResultsSurvey respondents from institutions in the USA, Canada, Europe, Japan, and Australia (n = 13) confirmed that the primary specialties utilizing IG are neurology, hematology, and immunology. More than 60% of respondents reported IG supply shortages, but mitigation strategies were not well developed.DiscussionAs IG is the leading driver in plasma demand, more studies are needed to understand current and future demand for IG from the clinical perspective. Necessity lies in establishing clinical guidance to address shortages.