Padmanabhan, Anand

Abstract Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a life-threatening, prothrombotic, antibody-mediated disorder. To maximize the likelihood of recovery, early and accurate diagnosis is critical. Widely available HIT assays, such as the platelet factor 4 (PF4) heparin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) lack specificity, and the gold-standard carbon 14–labeled serotonin release assay (SRA) is of limited value for early patient management because it is available only through reference laboratories. Recent studies have demonstrated that pathogenic HIT antibodies selectively activate PF4-treated platelets and that a technically simpler assay, the PF4-dependent P-selectin expression assay (PEA), may provide an option for rapid and conclusive results. Based upon predefined criteria that combined 4Ts scores and HIT ELISA results, 409 consecutive adults suspected of having HIT were classified as disease positive, negative, or indeterminate. Patients deemed HIT indeterminate were considered disease negative in the primary analysis and disease positive in a sensitivity analysis. The ability of PEA and SRA to identify patients judged to have HIT was compared using receiver operating characteristic curve statistics. Using these predefined criteria, the diagnostic accuracy of PEA was high (area under the curve [AUC], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.0) and similar to that of SRA (AUC, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.82-1.0). In sensitivity analysis, the AUCs of PEA and SRA were also similar at 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78-0.98) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.77-0.96), respectively. The PEA, a technically simple nonradioactive assay that uses ∼20-fold fewer platelets compared with the SRA, had high accuracy for diagnosing HIT. Widespread use of the PEA may facilitate timely and more effective management of patients with suspected HIT.

AbstractSince 1986, the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) has published practice guidelines on the use of therapeutic apheresis in the Journal of Clinical Apheresis (JCA) Special Issue. Since 2007, updated guidelines have been published every 3 years to reflect current evidence based apheresis practice with the most recent edition (8th) published in 2019. With each edition, the guidelines are reviewed and updated based on any newly published literature since the last review. The PEXIVAS study, an international, randomized controlled trial comparing therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) vs no TPE and standard vs reduced dose steroid regimen on the primary composite outcome of end stage renal disease or death in patients with ANCA‐associated vasculitis (AAV), was published in February 2020. This study represents the largest study on the role of therapeutic apheresis in AAV published to date and prompted the JCA Special Issue Writing Committee to reassess the current AAV fact sheet for updates based on this newly available evidence. This interim fact sheet summarizes current ASFA recommendations for the evidence‐based use of therapeutic apheresis in AAV and supersedes the recommendations published in the 2019 guidelines.

Abstract Introduction: Heparin-induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a potentially life and limb threatening pro-thrombotic syndrome triggered by antibodies to platelet factor 4 (PF4)/polyanion complexes. Commonly used screening tests such as the PF4/Heparin ELISA (PF4 ELISA), while easy to perform in the near-patient setting, are highly non-specific. In contrast, more accurate tests such as the serotonin release assay (SRA) are technically complex, require radioactivity and are performed in only a handful of reference laboratories. These diagnostic challenges lead to both unnecessary anticoagulant use as well as avoidable cases of severe bleeding. Recent reports suggest that a relatively simple three-hour flow cytometry-based test that uses PF4-treated normal platelets, the PEA (PF4-dependent p-selectin Expression Assay), is at least as accurate as the SRA for identifying patients who have HIT (Thromb Haemost. 2015 Nov 25;114(6):1322-3; Chest. 2016 Sep;150(3):506-15; Chest. 2017 Oct;152(4):e77-e80). Here we describe results of a large prospective study designed to compare the accuracy of the SRA and PEA for HIT diagnosis in a clinical setting. Methods: The PEA and SRA were performed on serum samples obtained from adult patients (≥18 yrs.) from 2 large tertiary care academic hospitals from May 2016 to Sep 2017. All inpatients for whom PF4 ELISA testing was ordered were included in the study. The PEA was performed with platelets pretreated with PF4 at 3 concentrations: 30mcg/mL (PEA30), 10mcg/mL (PEA10) and 3mcg/mL (PEA3). Sera were batch-tested in both assays (SRA and PEA) using the same target platelets. The central laboratory was blinded to clinical history and to the results of the PF4 ELISA performed by participating hospitals at the time of diagnosis. Both centers performed IgG-specific PF4 ELISAs and utilized manufacturer-recommended cut-offs for positivity. Predefined "more-stringent" and "less stringent" criteria based on clinical findings (4Ts score) and results of PF4 ELISA testing were used to define the likelihood of a patient having HIT (Table 1A). Receiver Operating Curve (ROC) analysis was performed and Area Under the Curve (AUC) of each assay was calculated to assess their diagnostic accuracy. Since high test specificity was desired, positive cut-offs that maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity in a specificity range of ≥90% and ≥95% were derived. To evaluate non-inferiority of the PEA to the SRA, we assessed whether the lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval of the ΔAUC (PEA-SRA) was higher than a non-inferiority margin of 5% and 10%. Results: A total of 440 patient samples were tested with both assays. Seventeen and 28 patients were classified as having true HIT based on the use of the more- and less-stringent criteria, respectively. When classified by more-stringent criteria, the AUC was numerically greater for each of the three PEA tests than for the SRA (Table 1B). All tests had excellent accuracy (AUC>0.90, "excellent" by the Traditional academic point system). Using less-stringent criteria, the PEA30 had the highest AUC estimate followed by the SRA (Table 1C). Positive cut-offs generated at test specificities of ≥90% and ≥95% using data classified by more stringent criteria are shown in Table 1D. PEA3 was non-inferior to the SRA at a 5% non-inferiority margin, and all PEA tests were non-inferior at the 10% margin using the more stringent classification for true HIT (Fig 1A). In the less-stringently classified data set, the PEA30 was non-inferior to the SRA at a 10% margin (Fig 1B). Conclusions: The PEA, a 3-hour, non-radioactive functional HIT assay demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy and was non-inferior to the SRA using commonly accepted non-inferiority margins for diagnostic testing (5-10%). The technical advantages of the PEA over the SRA may encourage its widespread adoption as a rapid-turnaround, accurate and near-patient diagnostic for patients with suspected HIT. Disclosures Jones: BloodCenter of Wisconsin: Patents & Royalties. Curtis:Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Bougie:BloodCenter of Wisconsin: Patents & Royalties. Aster:BloodCenter of Wisconsin: Patents & Royalties. Garcia:Shingoi: Consultancy; Retham Technologies LLC: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy. Padmanabhan:BloodCenter of Wisconsin: Patents & Royalties: Patent/royalties for HIT diagnostic testing; Veralox Therapeutics: Other: Advisory Board; Retham Technologies LLC: Equity Ownership, Other: Retham seeks to develop HITDx(TM), a new assay for HIT diagnosis; TerumoBCT: Consultancy; GE Healthcare: Other: Material support for Clinical Quality Improvement Initiative; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) JCA Special Issue Writing Committee is charged with reviewing, updating and categorizating indications for therapeutic apheresis. Beginning with the 2007 ASFA Special Issue (Fourth Edition), the committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence‐based approach in the grading and categorization of indications. This Sixth Edition of the ASFA Special Issue has further improved the process of using evidence‐based medicine in the recommendations by consistently applying the category and GRADE system definitions, but eliminating the “level of evidence” criteria (from the University HealthCare Consortium) utilized in prior editions given redundancy between GRADE and University HealthCare Consortium systems. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was utilized in the Fourth and Fifth Editions, has been largely maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of therapeutic apheresis in a specific disease entity. This article consists of 78 fact sheets (increased from 2010) for therapeutic indications in ASFA categories I through IV, with many diseases categorized having multiple clinical presentations/situations which are individually graded and categorized. J. Clin. Apheresis 28:145–284, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.