Szczepiorkowski, Zbigniew M.

ABSTRACTApheresis is performed worldwide for an increasing number of indications. The development of common data elements (CDE) for apheresis related areas may facilitate conduct of new research, enhance quality initiatives including benchmarking, and improve patient care. This report describes the systematic development of the Uniform Apheresis Case Report Form (UACRF) as part of the Apheresis in the United States (ApheresUS) program. A consensus panel of 17 diverse experts in apheresis, related specialties, and electronic case report form (eCRF), and database development was assembled. The panel met via online conferencing from November 17, 2020 to December 1, 2021. A draft document was posted online for public comment from October 11, 2021 to November 10, 2021. Feedback was collected using an online survey tool. The consensus panel revised the UACRF. This version was converted to an eCRF with additional changes made to improve usability in this format. The final version of the UACRF was created on August 24, 2023. The UACRF contains 16 modules: procedure and subject eligibility, patient demographics, general procedure information, laboratory parameters, vascular access, common procedure elements, eight procedure specific modules (mononuclear cell collection and seven therapeutic modalities), outcomes, and site information. A total of 137 data elements were created, including 57 with one or more subelements. The UACRF is the first systematic attempt to develop CDE for therapeutic apheresis and white blood cell collections. Further validation of the UACRF is necessary to confirm the tool's ability to collect the relevant data elements and determine the usability of the form.

Context.— Modern RHD genotyping can be used to determine when patients with serologic weak D phenotypes have RHD gene variants at risk for anti-D alloimmunization. However, serologic testing, RhD interpretations, and laboratory management of these patients are quite variable. Objective.— To obtain interlaboratory comparisons of serologic testing, RhD interpretations, Rh immune globulin (RhIG) management, fetomaternal hemorrhage testing, and RHD genotyping for weak D-reactive specimens. Design.— We devised an educational exercise in which 81 transfusion services supporting obstetrics performed tube-method RhD typing on 2 unknown red blood cell challenge specimens identified as (1) maternal and (2) newborn. Both specimens were from the same weak D-reactive donor. The exercise revealed how participants responded to these different clinical situations. Results.— Of reporting laboratories, 14% (11 of 80) obtained discrepant immediate-spin reactions on the 2 specimens. Nine different reporting terms were used to interpret weak D-reactive maternal RhD types to obstetricians. In laboratories obtaining negative maternal immediate-spin reactions, 28% (16 of 57) performed unwarranted antiglobulin testing, sometimes leading to recommendations against giving RhIG. To screen for excess fetomaternal hemorrhage after a weak D-reactive newborn, 47% (34 of 73) of reporting laboratories would have employed a contraindicated fetal rosette test, risking false-negative results and inadequate RhIG coverage. Sixty percent (44 of 73) of laboratories would obtain RHD genotyping in some or all cases. Conclusions.— For obstetric and neonatal patients with serologic weak D phenotypes, we found several critical problems in transfusion service laboratory practices. We provide recommendations for appropriate testing, consistent immunohematologic terminology, and RHD genotype–guided management of Rh immune globulin therapy and RBC transfusions.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough many apheresis centers offer extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP), little is known about current treatment practices.MethodsAn electronic survey was distributed to assess ECP practice internationally.ResultsOf 251 responses, 137 met criteria for analysis. Most respondents were from North America (80%). Nurses perform ECP at most centers (84%) and the majority of centers treat adults only (52%). Most centers treat fewer than 50 patients/year (83%) and perform fewer than 300 procedures/year (70%). Closed system devices (XTS and/or Cellex) are used to perform ECP at most centers (96%). The most common indications for ECP are acute/chronic skin graft versus host disease (89%) and cutaneous T‐cell lymphoma (63%). The typical wait time for ECP treatment is less than 2 weeks (91%). Most centers do not routinely perform quality control assessment of the collected product (66%). There are device‐specific differences in treatment parameters. For example, XTS users more frequently have a minimum weight limit (P = 0.003) and use laboratory parameters to determine eligibility for treatment (P = 0.03). Regardless of device used, the majority of centers assess the clinical status of the patient before each procedure. Greater than 50% of respondents would defer treatment for hemodynamic instability due to active sepsis or heart failure, positive blood culture in the past 24 h or current fever.ConclusionThis survey based study describes current ECP practices. Further research to provide evidence for optimal standardization of patient qualifications, procedure parameters and product quality assessment is recommended.

The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) conducted a 1 day consensus conference on Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (TTP) during its annual meeting in Atlanta, GA, on April 10, 2012. The authors of this article, a subcommittee of ASFA's Clinical Applications Committee, developed several questions with regard to definitions, classification, pathophysiology, diagnosis, management, and future research in TTP. These questions were provided to the seven invited speakers who are the experts in the field of TTP. Two moderators conducted the proceedings of the conference which was attended by more than 100 participants. After each presentation, there was an open discussion that included moderator‐selected written questions submitted by the audience. A medical writer‐generated transcript of the proceedings as well as each presentation was made available to the authors. Each summary was reviewed and approved by the respective speaker before submission of this article. The subcommittee also developed seven key questions for blinded, electronic polling conducted by the moderators to generate a consensus amongst the speakers. This article includes these presentation summaries as well as results of the electronic poll. J. Clin. Apheresis 29:148–167, 2014. © 2013 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Apheresis Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) JCA Special Issue Writing Committee is charged with reviewing, updating and categorizating indications for therapeutic apheresis. Beginning with the 2007 ASFA Special Issue (Fourth Edition), the committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence‐based approach in the grading and categorization of indications. This Sixth Edition of the ASFA Special Issue has further improved the process of using evidence‐based medicine in the recommendations by consistently applying the category and GRADE system definitions, but eliminating the “level of evidence” criteria (from the University HealthCare Consortium) utilized in prior editions given redundancy between GRADE and University HealthCare Consortium systems. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was utilized in the Fourth and Fifth Editions, has been largely maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of therapeutic apheresis in a specific disease entity. This article consists of 78 fact sheets (increased from 2010) for therapeutic indications in ASFA categories I through IV, with many diseases categorized having multiple clinical presentations/situations which are individually graded and categorized. J. Clin. Apheresis 28:145–284, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background The platelet (PLT) P an G enera D etection test ( PGD ) is a rapid bacterial detection system used to screen PLTs for bacterial contamination. We report a single center 46‐month experience with secondary screening of apheresis PLTs by PGD testing. Study Design and Methods Existing testing records of apheresis PLTs screened by PGD from J uly 2008 to A pril 2012 were reviewed. All PLT units were initially screened by routine postcollection culture methods. Secondary screening using PGD was performed for indated PLTs on PLT storage D ay 4 and for outdated PLTs on D ay 8. Results A total of 8535 apheresis PLTs were available in inventory during the study period. Of these, 5030 (58.9%) were dispensed and transfused before PGD testing and 3505 (41.1%) underwent PGD testing on D ay 4. Twenty‐five units tested on D ay 4 were PGD initial reactive (0.71%). All were confirmed to be false positive by repeat PGD testing in triplicate (n = 20) or by confirmatory culture (n = 5). An additional 364 units that were PGD nonreactive on D ay 4 were approved for transfusion on D ay 6 or D ay 7 due to urgent clinical need. A total of 371 outdated units underwent repeat PGD testing before discard on D ay 8; all were nonreactive. Conclusion Secondary PGD testing of culture‐screened apheresis PLTs results in low yield in a medium‐sized transfusion service. Use of PGD testing on D ay 4 may allow for extension of the apheresis PLT shelf life to D ay 7 for hospitals that face supply constraints.