Stephens, Laura D.

AbstractBackgroundThe COVID‐19 pandemic affected healthcare delivery across all specialties including apheresis. To describe the changes in apheresis service practices that occurred during the pandemic, the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Apheresis Medicine Attending Physician Subcommittee conducted a survey study.Study Design and MethodsA 32‐question survey was designed and distributed to 400 ASFA physician members on September 7, 2022. Attending physicians responded to questions about whether and how apheresis service practices changed during the COVID‐19 pandemic compared with the time period prior to the pandemic in terms of: (1) procedure types and volumes, (2) patient consultation workflow, and (3) the use of telemedicine. Descriptive analyses were reported as number and frequency of responses.ResultsThe survey response rate was 13.8% (55/400). Of these respondents, 96.4% (53/55) were attending physicians. The majority of respondents (42/53, 79.2%) indicated that the types of procedures performed during COVID‐19 compared to pre‐pandemic did not change. Most frequently for apheresis procedure volume, respondents reported: no change in their monthly inpatient volume (21/47, 44.7%) and a decrease in their monthly outpatient volume (28/46, 60.9%). Prior to COVID‐19, 75.0% (30/40) of respondents performed consultations at bedside for inpatients and 67.4% (29/43) performed consultations at bedside for outpatients. Bedside consultations decreased in both settings during the pandemic but were still most frequently performed by attending physicians. At the same time, the use of telemedicine increased for 15.4% of survey respondents during COVID‐19.ConclusionSome, but not all, respondents observed or made changes to their apheresis service during the COVID‐19 pandemic. A subset of changes, such as increased utilization of telemedicine, may persist.

AbstractBackgroundCurrent Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB) standards require transfusion services to have a policy on Rh immune globulin (RhIG) immunoprophylaxis for when RhD‐negative patients are exposed to RhD‐positive red cells. This is a survey of AABB‐accredited transfusion services in the United States (US) regarding institutional policies and practices on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐negative patients receive RhD‐positive (i.e., RhD‐incompatible) packed red blood cell (pRBC) and platelet transfusions.ResultsApproximately half of the respondents (50.4%, 116/230) have policies on RhIG administration after RhD‐incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, while others had policies for only pRBC (13.5%, 31/230) or only platelet (17.8%, 41/230) transfusions, but not both. In contrast, 18.3% (42/230) report that their institution has no written policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐incompatible transfusions. Most institutions (70.2%, 99/141) do not have policies addressing safety parameters to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required to prevent RhD alloimmunization after RhD‐incompatible pRBC transfusions.DiscussionWith approximately half of US AABB‐accredited institutions report having policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after both RhD‐incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, some institutions may not be in compliance with AABB standards. Further, most with policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐incompatible pRBC transfusion do not have written safeguards to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required.ConclusionThis survey underscores the diverse and inadequate institutional policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD exposure in Rh‐negative patients via transfusion. This observation identifies an opportunity to improve transfusion safety.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a cornerstone of modern medical practice, and can only be performed safely and effectively with appropriate transfusion medicine support. Patients undergoing HSCT often develop therapy-related cytopenia, necessitating differing blood product requirements in the pre-, peri-, and post-transplant periods. Moreover, ensuring optimal management for patients alloimmunized to human leukocyte antigens (HLA) and/or red blood cell (RBC) antigens, as well as for patients receiving ABO-incompatible transplants, requires close collaboration with transfusion medicine and blood bank professionals. Finally, as updated transfusion guidelines and novel blood product modifications emerge, the options available to the transplant practitioner continue to expand. Herein, we detail contemporary blood transfusion and transfusion medicine practices for patients undergoing HSCT.

Abstract Objectives Gender equity studies have shown that women are underrepresented in journal editor in chief positions, which confer major professional opportunities and influence. We sought to systematically investigate editor in chief gender and journal attributes within pathology. Methods We constructed a journal data set using the Scimago Journal & Country Rank and Clarivate Journal Citation Reports databases. We also included official journals of the major medical societies for the 12 pathology subspecialties recognized by the Association of American Medical Colleges. The final data set included 126 journals. We obtained editor in chief gender, impact factor, publication model (ie, hybrid access vs open access), year of founding, and geographic location for all included pathology journals. Results Women made up only 18% of the 141 total editor in chief positions. This inequity was present irrespective of all pathology journal variables studied. Among 10 journals with 2 editor in chief positions, 5 had only men and 5 had 1 man and 1 woman. All 3 journals with 3 editor in chief positions had 2 men and 1 woman. Conclusions Women are significantly underrepresented among editor in chiefs across pathology journals. Journals and affiliated members should advocate for diversity among these influential positions, given their impact on research, science, and medicine.

SummaryThe thrombotic risk with haemoglobin C trait (HbAC) or haemoglobin C disease (HbCC) is unclear. However, individuals with HbCC have demonstrated chronic haemolysis, higher blood viscosity and altered rheology when compared to individuals with wild‐type haemoglobin (HbAA). These physiological alterations may theoretically translate to increased risk of thrombosis; therefore, a systematic literature review was performed to investigate the possible association between HbAC and/or HbCC and thrombosis. Twenty‐two studies met inclusion criteria representing 782 individuals with HbAC (n = 694) or HbCC (n = 88). Fifteen studies described the presence/absence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with HbAC (n = 685) or HbCC (n = 79), while seven studies described patients with HbAC (n = 9) or HbCC (n = 9) and arterial thrombosis. Most (n = 20) studies were case reports or case series; however, two studies suggested a potential increased VTE risk with HbAC compared to HbAA in (i) all patients (OR 2.2, 95% CI: 0.9–5.5) and in (ii) pregnant individuals (RR 3.7, 95% CI 0.9–16). This review is the largest assessment of patients with HbC trait or disease and thrombosis to date; despite its limitations, the findings suggest HbC may be a predisposing risk factor to thrombosis. Prospective cohort studies are warranted to definitively elucidate the risk of thrombosis in this population.