Raval, Jay S.

AbstractImportanceNeuromyelitis optica/neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder patients' response to therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) is currently incompletely characterized.ObjectiveOur study aims to understand the clinical status improvement of neuromyelitis optica/neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder patients treated with TPE.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis is a multicenter retrospective study conducted between 1 January 2003 and 31 July 2017 at 13 US hospitals performing apheresis procedures. Subjects studied were diagnosed with neuromyelitis optica/neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder who received TPE during presentation with acute disease.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was clinical status improvement in patients treated with TPE. Secondary measures were procedural and patient characteristics associated with response to treatment.ResultsWe evaluated 114 patients from 13 institutions. There was a female predilection. The largest ethnic group affected was non‐Hispanic Caucasian. The average age of diagnosis was 43.1 years. The average time to diagnosis was 3.1 years. On average, five procedures were performed during each treatment series. The most commonly performed plasma volume exchange was 1.0 to 1.25 using 5% albumin as replacement fluid. Most patients (52%) did not require an additional course of TPE and noted “mild” to “moderate” clinical status improvement. Maximal symptom improvement appeared by the fourth or fifth TPE treatment.Conclusion and RelevanceTPE improved the clinical status of patients. Adults responded more favorably than children. Procedural characteristics, including number of TPEs, plasma volume exchanged, and replacement fluid used, were similar between institutions. TPE was well‐tolerated and had a low severe adverse event profile.

BACKGROUNDABO‐incompatible platelet transfusions are common, and transfusions with ABO‐incompatible plasma are increasing with the use of group A plasma and group O whole blood (WB) in emergencies. Many centers screen blood products for anti‐A and/or anti‐B titers to help prevent hemolysis from ABO‐incompatible transfusions, yet titer methods and definition of high titers are not standardized.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSThis international multicenter study collected data on anti‐A and anti‐B titer practices for plasma, apheresis platelet (AP), and WB units from January 2015 through December 2017 to determine the prevalence of high‐titer units using local definitions.RESULTSA total of 87,701 plasma, AP and WB units were screened for high‐titer anti‐A and/or anti‐B. High‐titer detection rates for group A plasma ranged 0%–13.6%; group A AP 2.7%–9.3%; group O AP 2.3%–65.7%; and group O WB 6.4%–20.7%. At the one center that collected group B AP, the high‐titer rate was 10.9%. High‐titer rates varied from month to month, as well as between years for a given month. There was no clear pattern of when high‐titer units were donated.CONCLUSIONThe prevalence of high‐titer plasma, AP, and WB units varies by titer method and local definition of high titer. Even at the lowest titer threshold of 50, a significant proportion of units had a high‐titer antibody, although the clinical relevance of this finding needs further investigation.

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.