Koepsell, Scott A.

AbstractRare cases of COVID‐19 vaccinated individuals develop anti‐platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies that cause thrombocytopenia and thrombotic complications, a syndrome referred to as vaccine‐induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Currently, information on the characteristics and persistence of anti‐PF4 antibodies that cause VITT after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination is limited, and available diagnostic assays fail to differentiate Ad26.COV2.S and ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19‐associated VITT from similar clinical disorders, namely heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and spontaneous HIT. Here we demonstrate that while Ad26.COV2.S‐associated VITT patients are uniformly strongly positive in PF4‐polyanion enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs); they are frequently negative in the serotonin release assay (SRA). The PF4‐dependent p‐selectin expression assay (PEA) that uses platelets treated with PF4 rather than heparin consistently diagnosed Ad26.COV2.S‐associated VITT. Most Ad26.COV2.S‐associated VITT antibodies persisted for >5 months in PF4‐polyanion ELISAs, while the PEA became negative earlier. Two patients had otherwise unexplained mild persistent thrombocytopenia (140‐150 x 103/µL) 6 months after acute presentation. From an epidemiological perspective, differentiating VITT from spontaneous HIT, another entity that develops in the absence of proximate heparin exposure, and HIT is important, but currently available PF4‐polyanion ELISAs and functional assay are non‐specific and detect all three conditions. Here, we report that a novel un‐complexed PF4 ELISA specifically differentiates VITT, secondary to both Ad26.COV2.S and ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19, from both spontaneous HIT, HIT and commonly‐encountered HIT‐suspected patients who are PF4/polyanion ELISA‐positive but negative in functional assays. In summary, Ad26.COV2.S‐associated VITT antibodies are persistent, and the un‐complexed PF4 ELISA appears to be both sensitive and specific for VITT diagnosis.

BACKGROUNDA prior practice survey revealed variations in the management of patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) and stressed the need for comprehensive guidelines. Here we discuss: 1) common indications for red blood cell exchange (RCE), 2) options for access, 3) how to prepare the red blood cells (RBCs) to be used for RCE, 4) target hemoglobin (Hb) and/or hematocrit (Hct) and HbS level, 5) RBC depletion/RCE, and 6) some complications that may ensue.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSFifteen physicians actively practicing apheresis from 14 institutions representing different areas within the United States discussed how they manage RCE for patients with SCD.RESULTSSimple transfusion is recommended to treat symptomatic anemia with Hb level of less than 9 g/dL. RCE is indicated to prevent or treat complications arising from the presence of HbS. The most important goals are reduction of HbS while also preventing hyperviscosity. The usual goals are a target HbS level of not more than 30% and Hct level of less than 30%.CONCLUSIONAlthough a consensus as to protocol details may not be possible, there are areas of agreement in the management of these patients, for example, that it is optimal to avoid hyperviscosity and iron overload, that a target Hb S level in the range of 30% is generally desirable, and that RCE as an acute treatment for pain crisis in the absence of other acute or chronic conditions is ordinarily discouraged.