Hankins, Jane S

Abstract To address acute vaso-occlusive episodes (VOEs), the leading cause of emergency department (ED) visits among individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD), we conducted the clinical study, ALIGN (An Individualized Pain Plan with Patient and Provider Access for Emergency Department care of SCD), across 8 sites. We hypothesized an improvement of 0.5 standard deviations in perceived quality of ED pain treatment of a VOE after implementing individualized pain plans (IPPs) accessible to both patients and providers. Patients with SCD were aged 18 to 45 years, owned a cell phone, and had an ED VOE visit within 90 days prior. Patients completed the perceived quality of care surveys at baseline and within 96 hours after an ED VOE visit. Providers completed surveys regarding comfort managing VOEs at baseline and after managing an enrolled patient. Most of the 153 patients were African American (95.4%), female (64.7%), and had Hb SS/Sβ0 genotype (71.9%). The perceived quality of ED pain treatment was high at both baseline and after implementation of IPPs; our primary outcome hypothesis was not met, because no statistically significant change in the patient-perceived quality of ED treatment occurred. A total of 135 providers completed baseline and follow-up surveys. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being extremely comfortable managing VOEs, 60.5% reported a score ≥6 after IPP implementation vs 57.8% at baseline. Almost all (97.6%) ordered the recommended medication, and 94.7% intended to use IPPs. In this implementation protocol, all sites successfully implemented IPPs. Patients and ED providers both endorsed the use of IPPs. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as # NCT04584528.

Abstract Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a life-limiting inherited hemoglobinopathy that results in significant complications and affects quality of life. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is currently the only curative intervention for SCD; however, guidelines are needed to inform how to apply HSCT in clinical practice. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and health professionals in their decisions about HSCT for SCD. Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline panel formed by ASH included 2 patient representatives and was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (through 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. 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, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 8 recommendations to help patients and providers assess how individuals with SCD should consider the timing and type of HSCT. Conclusions: The evidence review yielded no randomized controlled clinical trials for HSCT in SCD; therefore, all recommendations are based on very low certainty in the evidence. Key recommendations include considering HSCT for those with neurologic injury or recurrent acute chest syndrome at an early age and to improve nonmyeloablative regimens. Future research should include the development of a robust SCD registry to serve as a comparator for HSCT studies.

Abstract Background In November 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provided Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for 2 novel virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies, bamlanivimab and REGN-COV2 (casirivimab plus imdevimab), for the treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adolescents and adults in specified high-risk groups. This has challenged clinicians to determine the best approach to use of these products. Methods A panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacy, pediatric intensive care medicine, and pediatric hematology from 29 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a guidance statement was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion. Results The course of COVID-19 in children and adolescents is typically mild and there is no high-quality evidence supporting any high-risk groups. There is no evidence for safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapy for treatment of COVID-19 in children or adolescents, limited evidence of modest benefit in adults, and evidence for potential harm associated with infusion reactions or anaphylaxis. Conclusions Based on evidence available as of December 20, 2020, the panel suggests against routine administration of monoclonal antibody therapy (bamlanivimab, or casirivimab and imdevimab), for treatment of COVID-19 in children or adolescents, including those designated by the FDA as at high risk of progression to hospitalization or severe disease. Clinicians and health systems choosing to use these agents on an individualized basis should consider risk factors supported by pediatric-specific evidence and ensure the implementation of a system for safe and timely administration that does not exacerbate existing healthcare disparities.