Juskewitch, Justin E.

AbstractPrior studies have suggested that immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) may display seasonal variation; however, methodologic limitations and sample sizes have diminished the ability to perform a rigorous assessment. This 5‐year retrospective study assessed the epidemiology of iTTP and determined whether it displays a seasonal pattern. Patients with both initial and relapsed iTTP (defined as a disintegrin and metalloprotease with thrombospondin type motifs 13 activity <10%) from 24 tertiary centers in Australia, Canada, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, and the US were included. Seasons were defined as: Northern Hemisphere—winter (December–February); spring (March–May); summer (June–August); autumn (September–November) and Southern Hemisphere—winter (June–August); spring (September–November); summer (December–February); autumn (March–May). Additional outcomes included the mean temperature in months with and without an iTTP episode at each site. A total of 583 patients experienced 719 iTTP episodes. The observed proportion of iTTP episodes during the winter was significantly greater than expected if equally distributed across seasons (28.5%, 205/719, 25.3%–31.9%; p = .03). Distance from the equator and mean temperature deviation both positively correlated with the proportion of iTTP episodes during winter. Acute iTTP episodes were associated with the winter season and colder temperatures, with a second peak during summer. Occurrence during winter was most pronounced at sites further from the equator and/or with greater annual temperature deviations. Understanding the etiologies underlying seasonal patterns of disease may assist in discovery and development of future preventative therapies and inform models for resource utilization.

AbstractBackgroundWith the widespread adoption of Blood Establishment Computer Systems and other Blood Collection and Transfusion Service (BCTS) clinical information systems (CIS), electronic blood donor, product, and patient data are now routinely required for clinical, regulatory, operational, and quality needs. That data are often not readily accessible for such secondary use within CIS databases, particularly for applications with significant data availability requirements such as machine learning and artificial intelligence. Data replication provides one avenue by which CIS data can be made more readily available.Study Design and MethodsMembers of the AABB's Information Systems Committee along with institutional information technology colleagues provided a multi‐institutional viewpoint on data replication through the lens of BCTS specific use cases. Case studies of informatics offerings leveraging such technologies were also elicited.ResultsSix distinct use cases describe the potential role of data replication including the creation of data warehouses for frontline laboratory staff. Specific BCTS examples for each use case are presented to highlight the value of data replication, including visualization of critical inventory (O red blood cells, HLA‐compatible platelets) and utilization analytics for patient blood management. Two case studies describe the approach to implement such technologies to (1) optimize staffing via laboratory workload reporting and (2) improve access to blood via antigen‐negative blood product location services.DiscussionData replication and warehousing can empower BCTS analytic offerings not otherwise natively available through one's CIS to improve patient care and laboratory operations.

ABSTRACT Although severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and hospitalization associated with COVID-19 are generally preventable among healthy vaccine recipients, patients with immunosuppression have poor immunogenic responses to COVID-19 vaccines and remain at high risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and hospitalization. In addition, monoclonal antibody therapy is limited by the emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants that have serially escaped neutralization. In this context, there is interest in understanding the clinical benefit associated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma collected from persons who have been both naturally infected with SARS-CoV-2 and vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 (“vax-plasma”). Thus, we report the clinical outcome of 386 immunocompromised outpatients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and who received contemporary COVID-19-specific therapeutics (standard-of-care group) and a subgroup who also received concomitant treatment with very high titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma (vax-plasma group) with a specific focus on hospitalization rates. The overall hospitalization rate was 2.2% (5 of 225 patients) in the vax-plasma group and 6.2% (10 of 161 patients) in the standard-of-care group, which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 65% ( P = 0.046). Evidence of efficacy in nonvaccinated patients cannot be inferred from these data because 94% (361 of 386 patients) of patients were vaccinated. In vaccinated patients with immunosuppression and COVID-19, the addition of vax-plasma or very high titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma to COVID-19-specific therapies reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. IMPORTANCE As SARS-CoV-2 evolves, new variants of concern (VOCs) have emerged that evade available anti-spike monoclonal antibodies, particularly among immunosuppressed patients. However, high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma continues to be effective against VOCs because of its broad-spectrum immunomodulatory properties. Thus, we report clinical outcomes of 386 immunocompromised outpatients who were treated with COVID-19-specific therapeutics and a subgroup also treated with vaccine-boosted convalescent plasma. We found that the administration of vaccine-boosted convalescent plasma was associated with a significantly decreased incidence of hospitalization among immunocompromised COVID-19 outpatients. Our data add to the contemporary data providing evidence to support the clinical utility of high-titer convalescent plasma as antibody replacement therapy in immunocompromised patients.

Abstract Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19 in immunocompromised (IC) patients. IC patients have a higher risk of persistent infection, severe disease, and death from COVID-19. Despite the continued clinical use of CCP to treat IC patients, the optimal dose, frequency/schedule, and duration of CCP treatment has yet to be determined, and related best practices guidelines are lacking. A group of individuals with expertise spanning infectious diseases, virology and transfusion medicine was assembled to render an expert opinion statement pertaining to the use of CCP for IC patients. For optimal effect, CCP should be recently and locally collected to match circulating variant. CCP should be considered for the treatment of IC patients with acute and protracted COVID-19; dosage depends on clinical setting (acute vs protracted COVID-19). CCP containing high-titer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies, retains activity against circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, which have otherwise rendered monoclonal antibodies ineffective.

AbstractBackgroundIdiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) encompass many rheumatologic diseases characterized by inflammatory muscle disease, typically unified by proximal muscle weakness. A subset of patients with IIM present with interstitial lung disease (ILD) with identifiable antibodies such as in anti‐synthetase syndrome (AS) with antibodies to aminoacyl‐tRNA synthetases, and clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis (CADM) with anti‐melanoma differentiation‐associated protein 5 (MDA5). Recent case reports demonstrate response to therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) or column filtration plasmapheresis in IIM with ILD resistant to medical management. We present our experience with eight patients with IIM with ILD undergoing TPE at a large US‐based hospital system.Patient characteristicsEight patients with IIM with ILD were treated with TPE over the last 10 years. The therapy consisted of 5‐7 one plasma volume exchanges every other day to daily. Seven of eight patients had identifiable antibodies.ResultsFollowing completion of TPE, seven of eight demonstrated improvement in pulmonary function despite lack of improvement of pulmonary function with standard therapy.ConclusionIn antibody‐mediated, treatment refractory IIM with ILD, TPE may be a viable intervention. This is a disease for which the role of apheresis is evolving.Clinical trial registrationNot application.

AbstractBackgroundSolid‐phase platelet crossmatch (PXM) testing is used to help manage patients with platelet transfusion‐refractoriness. Recently, we published the first report of false‐negative PXM results from prozone effect that was mitigated using sample dilution. This study aimed to describe the prevalence of PXM prozone effect and the levels of class I HLA antibodies (HLA‐Abs) associated with positive PXM results and with false‐negative PXM results from prozone effect.Study Design and MethodsA cross‐sectional study of patients undergoing PXM testing from July 2019 through December 2020 was performed. All PXM tests were run simultaneously using undiluted and 1:4 diluted patient plasma. Prozone effect was defined as a negative PXM result using undiluted patient plasma but a positive PXM result using 1:4 diluted patient plasma.ResultsAmong 59 patients, 830 individual ABO‐compatible PXM results yielded an overall positivity rate of 25.8% (214/830) and a false‐negative rate from prozone effect of 4.7% (10/214). Among the 28 patients with class I HLA‐Ab testing and no other anti‐platelet antibodies, maximum HLA‐Ab mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) was significantly associated with a positive PXM result (p < .0001; AUC approx. 0.9) and categorized into negative (<3700), indeterminate (3700–10300), and positive (>10300) maximum HLA‐Ab MFI zones. Maximum HLA‐Ab MFI, however, was not associated with prozone effect (p = .17; AUC approx. 0.6).DiscussionWhile there is a strong predictive association between class I HLA‐Ab levels and positive PXM results, PXM prozone effect is a common occurrence not associated with class I HLA‐Ab levels, so additional testing with diluted samples should be considered.