Schneiderman, Jennifer

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.

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.

AbstractBackgroundChimeric antigen receptor T (CAR‐T) cell successes have encouraged continued clinical study. Apheresis collection of starting material for CAR‐T cell therapy product manufacturing is critical but described approaches suggest variability and clinical guidelines are currently lacking. The goal of this study was to gather and assess variability in apheresis collection descriptions in publicly available CAR T‐cell therapy clinical trials.Study designWe searched clinicaltrials.gov (a publicly available clinical trial database) for “chimeric antigen receptor T cells” on July 01, 2020 and studies accessed July 30, 2020‐August 15, 2020. Data collected included date posted, study characteristics, apheresis mentions (number, location, and context), laboratory parameters and transfusion allowances. Apheresis context was analyzed using a qualitative inductive approach of grounded theory method with open coding. Text was classified into 37 context codes, grouped into 12 categories, and then consolidated into patient, procedure, product, and miscellaneous themes.ResultsApheresis was mentioned 1044 times in 322 (51.9%) of 621 total studies. Laboratory parameters mentioned included white blood cells (100 studies), absolute neutrophil count (220 studies), absolute lymphocyte count (102 studies), CD3+ cell (38 studies), hemoglobin (233 studies, 54 studies specified transfusion allowance), and platelet (269 studies, 48 studies specified transfusion allowance).ConclusionsApheresis collection of CAR‐T cell products is not well‐defined in clinical study descriptions and the context is inconsistent. Laboratory parameters useful for apheresis collection are variably present and do not consistently align with current practices. Further exploration, and clinical guideline development will encourage alignment of apheresis collections for CAR‐T cell products.

AbstractSince 1986, the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) has published practice guidelines on the use of therapeutic apheresis in the Journal of Clinical Apheresis (JCA) Special Issue. Since 2007, updated guidelines have been published every 3 years to reflect current evidence based apheresis practice with the most recent edition (8th) published in 2019. With each edition, the guidelines are reviewed and updated based on any newly published literature since the last review. The PEXIVAS study, an international, randomized controlled trial comparing therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) vs no TPE and standard vs reduced dose steroid regimen on the primary composite outcome of end stage renal disease or death in patients with ANCA‐associated vasculitis (AAV), was published in February 2020. This study represents the largest study on the role of therapeutic apheresis in AAV published to date and prompted the JCA Special Issue Writing Committee to reassess the current AAV fact sheet for updates based on this newly available evidence. This interim fact sheet summarizes current ASFA recommendations for the evidence‐based use of therapeutic apheresis in AAV and supersedes the recommendations published in the 2019 guidelines.

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.

PurposeWilson's disease is a rare autosomal recessive genetic disorder that results in accumulation of copper in the liver, brain, cornea and kidney. Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) has been used to remove copper and provide a bridge to liver transplantation. We report here the collective experiences through the ASFA apheresis registry on Wilson's disease.MethodsThe ASFA apheresis registry is a multi‐center registry study. Both prospective and retrospective data, with the latter involving data collection back to January 2000 are entered in the registry. The registry includes patient demographics, apheresis procedural information, treatment schedules, and treatment outcomes and complications.ResultsA total of 10 patients (3 males and 7 females) with Wilson's disease treated between 2005 and 2013 were included. Median age of first diagnosis and first TPE were 16 and 17 years, respectively. Via central venous access, these patients underwent a total of 43 TPEs; the median number of TPE procedures per patient was 3.5. All of the TPEs used ACD‐A as anticoagulation, 42/43 TPEs targeted 1–1.25 plasma volumes, and 41/43 TPEs were performed with 100% fluid balance. Post TPE procedures, 9 patients underwent liver transplantation; all 10 patients had at least a 6‐month survival.ConclusionsAll 10 patients with Wilson's disease who underwent TPE had a positive outcome in terms of 6‐month survival. In this first report of the ASFA apheresis registry study, we have demonstrated the value of using this registry to collect apheresis‐related patient outcomes from multiple centers. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:11–15, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.