Citations

ABSTRACT Apheresis medicine is a continually evolving field with numerous studies published each year. To help apheresis practitioners stay up to date with the current literature, members of the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Attending Physician Subcommittee identified and summarized 10 seminal articles published in 2025, from the field of apheresis medicine. PubMed was used to identify articles published in four topics including donor apheresis, therapeutic apheresis, apheresis education, and apheresis collection for cellular therapy. These articles met at least one of the following criteria: novel findings, practice‐altering outcomes, international in scope, randomized‐controlled trial, relevant to current clinical practice, and/or provide evidence for category III or IV indications based on the ASFA 9th Special Issue of the Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice‐Evidence‐Based Approach. Full length, peer‐reviewed manuscripts in English with data from human subjects were included while case reports, review articles, and meta‐analyses were excluded.

Background: Plasma cell dyscrasia (PCD) is a rare but important cause of end stage kidney disease (ESKD). Kidney transplant is the treatment of choice in patients with ESKD. However, the complexity of PCD care and risk of disease recurrence poses challenges to kidney transplant candidacy and outcomes. We examined the current clinical practice patterns of clinicians who care for patients with PCD and identified barriers to kidney transplantation for patients with PCD. Methods: A web-based survey was developed and distributed from January to July 2024 to kidney transplant clinicians (American Society of Transplant (AST) members), hematologists (PCD experts), and onco-nephrologists. Results: Seventy clinicians (50 transplant nephrologists, 18 hematologists, and two surgeons) from 42 transplant centers in the US participated in the survey. Clinical practice patterns pre and post kidney transplant for patients with PCD are highly variable among institutions, and only 36% reported having a protocol for pre- and post-transplant management for patients with PCD. Particularly, the requirement for pre-transplant hematologic remission criteria, induction and maintenance immunosuppression regimens and protocols for prophylaxis and screening for opportunistic infection are areas of future study. Clinicians listed lack of data and practice guidance as well as communication challenges among multiple specialties especially hematology and kidney transplant clinicians as notable barriers. Conclusions: Our study identified the highly variable current practice patterns when evaluating and managing patients with PCD for kidney transplant. Our findings emphasize the need for collecting and sharing clinical data to support standardized practices and serve as a basis for the upcoming multi-societal management recommendation for kidney transplant for patients with PCD.

ABSTRACT The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Attending Physician Subcommittee of the Physicians' Committee performed an annual review of articles published in 2024 related to apheresis medicine. The 10 seminal apheresis articles selected by the subcommittee members are summarized in this review. PubMed was used to identify manuscripts published in 2024 in four areas of interest: donor apheresis, therapeutic apheresis, apheresis education, and apheresis for cellular therapy. Only full length, peer‐reviewed manuscripts in English with data from human subjects were included. Case reports, review articles, and meta‐analyses were excluded. Articles were considered seminal if they met at least one of the following previously established criteria: novel finding(s), practice‐altering outcomes, international in scope, randomized‐controlled trial, relevant to current clinical practice, and/or provide evidence for category III or IV indications based on the ASFA 9th special issue of the Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice‐Evidence‐Based Approach.

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.

AbstractSince vaccination for SARS‐CoV‐2 coronavirus started, the trajectory of patient numbers infected with the virus has improved once; however, variants of SARS‐CoV‐2 have emerged and more people have been infected; therefore, pandemic status is still far from resolution. Government and social efforts to prevent coronavirus infection continue in most states in the US and globally even after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared some restriction relief for fully vaccinated people in March 2021. Healthcare institutions and various professional organizations have developed guidelines or policies to prevent the spread of these coronaviruses in the setting of apheresis. In this report, the issues that apheresis services may encounter under the current COVID‐19 (SARS‐CoV‐2 coronavirus disease) pandemic will be discussed with potential strategies that can be adapted for efficient and optimum use of apheresis resources.

Background While there is a long history of measuring death and disability from injuries, modern research methods must account for the wide spectrum of disability that can occur in an injury, and must provide estimates with sufficient demographic, geographical and temporal detail to be useful for policy makers. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study used methods to provide highly detailed estimates of global injury burden that meet these criteria. Methods In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced. Results GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes. Conclusions GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future.

Background Past research in population health trends has shown that injuries form a substantial burden of population health loss. Regular updates to injury burden assessments are critical. We report Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 Study estimates on morbidity and mortality for all injuries. Methods We reviewed results for injuries from the GBD 2017 study. GBD 2017 measured injury-specific mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) using the Cause of Death Ensemble model. To measure non-fatal injuries, GBD 2017 modelled injury-specific incidence and converted this to prevalence and years lived with disability (YLDs). YLLs and YLDs were summed to calculate disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Findings In 1990, there were 4 260 493 (4 085 700 to 4 396 138) injury deaths, which increased to 4 484 722 (4 332 010 to 4 585 554) deaths in 2017, while age-standardised mortality decreased from 1079 (1073 to 1086) to 738 (730 to 745) per 100 000. In 1990, there were 354 064 302 (95% uncertainty interval: 338 174 876 to 371 610 802) new cases of injury globally, which increased to 520 710 288 (493 430 247 to 547 988 635) new cases in 2017. During this time, age-standardised incidence decreased non-significantly from 6824 (6534 to 7147) to 6763 (6412 to 7118) per 100 000. Between 1990 and 2017, age-standardised DALYs decreased from 4947 (4655 to 5233) per 100 000 to 3267 (3058 to 3505). Interpretation Injuries are an important cause of health loss globally, though mortality has declined between 1990 and 2017. Future research in injury burden should focus on prevention in high-burden populations, improving data collection and ensuring access to medical care.

Background The use of procurement biopsies for assessing kidney quality has been implicated as a driver of the nearly 20% kidney discard rate in the United States. Yet in some contexts, biopsies may boost clinical confidence, enabling acceptance of kidneys that would otherwise be discarded. We leveraged a novel organ offer simulation platform to conduct a controlled experiment isolating biopsy effects on offer acceptance decisions. Methods Between November 26 and December 14, 2018, 41 kidney transplant surgeons and 27 transplant nephrologists each received the same 20 hypothetical kidney offers using a crossover design with weekend “washout” periods. Mini-study 1 included four, low serum creatinine (<1.5 mg/dl) donor offers with arguably “poor” biopsy findings that were based on real offers that were accepted with successful 3-year recipient outcome. For each of the four offers, two experimental variants—no biopsy and “good” biopsy—were also sent. Mini-study 2 included four AKI offers with no biopsy, each having an offer variant with “good” biopsy findings. Results Among low serum creatinine donor offers, we found approximately threefold higher odds of acceptance when arguably poor biopsy findings were hidden or replaced with good biopsy findings. Among AKI donor offers, we found nearly fourfold higher odds of acceptance with good biopsy findings compared with no biopsy. Biopsy information had profound but variable effects on decision making: more participants appeared to have been influenced by biopsies to rule out, versus rule in, transplantable kidneys. Conclusions The current use of biopsies in the United States appears skewed toward inducing kidney discard. Several areas for improvement, including reducing variation in offer acceptance decisions and more accurate interpretation of findings, have the potential to make better use of scarce, donated organs. Offer simulation studies are a viable research tool for understanding decision making and identifying ways to improve the transplant system.