Woo, Jennifer S.

AbstractIntroductionApheresis practices in the United States (US) have not been comprehensively characterized to date. This study aimed to address this gap by evaluating apheresis therapy through a national survey.MethodsA multi‐institutional survey was conducted between April and July 2023. The survey, comprising 54 questions, focused on institutional demographics, procedures, equipment, staffing, training, and impacts of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Responses from 22 institutions, primarily academic medical centers, were analyzed.ResultsTherapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) was the most common procedure, followed by hematopoietic progenitor cell collection (HPC‐A) and red blood cell exchange (RCE). CAR‐T cell collections were widespread, with some institutions supporting over 30 protocols concurrently. Most sites used the Spectra Optia Apheresis System, were managed by a transfusion medicine service, and employed internal apheresis providers. Insufficient staffing levels, exacerbated by the COVID‐19 pandemic, were common and most often addressed using overtime.DiscussionThe survey highlighted the ubiquity of TPE, expanding cellular collections and staffing challenges. The role of apheresis in supporting cellular therapy, particularly in newly developing cell and gene therapies and clinical trials, was evident. Staffing issues during the pandemic emphasized the need for innovative recruitment strategies.ConclusionThis nationwide survey provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of apheresis practices in large US academic centers.

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.