Pham, Huy P.

AbstractVon Willebrand factor (VWF) level and/or function is altered in von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common heritable bleeding disorder worldwide. Laboratory assessment of VWF is continually evolving. Historically, the primary method for the assessment of VWF platelet-binding activity was the ristocetin cofactor assay (VWF:RCo). Contemporary alternative measures of VWF platelet-binding activity include VWF:GPIbR (recombinant; using ristocetin), VWF:GPIbM (recombinant; gain-of-function mutant), and monoclonal antibody. Recently, the American Society of Hematology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, National Hemophilia Foundation, and World Federation of Hemophilia collaboration issued guidelines recommending the use of newer assays of VWF platelet-binding activity (VWF: GPIbM, VWF: GPIbR) over VWF:RCo, given known limitations of the VWF:RCo assay. Despite this recommendation, the newer VWF:GPIbM and VWF:GPIbR assays are not United States Food and Drug Administration cleared, limiting their availability in the United States. We sought to assess assay utilization trends, agreement of VWF testing methods, and imprecision of VWF testing (based on assigned sample type) from the College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Surveys. The analysis confirms that, while VWF antigen testing has low imprecision, the various VWF activity assays have significant interassay variability, with VWF:RCo showing greater imprecision than the newer GPIb-binding assays. The overall trends in assay utilization reflect the barriers to complete compliance with modern VWD diagnostic guidelines in North America.

AbstractVon Willebrand factor (VWF) level and/or function is altered in von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common heritable bleeding disorder worldwide. Laboratory assessment of VWF is continually evolving. Historically, the primary method for the assessment of VWF platelet-binding activity was the ristocetin cofactor assay (VWF:RCo). Contemporary alternative measures of VWF platelet-binding activity include VWF:GPIbR (recombinant; using ristocetin), VWF:GPIbM (recombinant; gain-of-function mutant), and monoclonal antibody. Recently, the American Society of Hematology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, National Hemophilia Foundation, and World Federation of Hemophilia collaboration issued guidelines recommending the use of newer assays of VWF platelet-binding activity (VWF: GPIbM, VWF: GPIbR) over VWF:RCo, given known limitations of the VWF:RCo assay. Despite this recommendation, the newer VWF:GPIbM and VWF:GPIbR assays are not United States Food and Drug Administration cleared, limiting their availability in the United States. We sought to assess assay utilization trends, agreement of VWF testing methods, and imprecision of VWF testing (based on assigned sample type) from the College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Surveys. The analysis confirms that, while VWF antigen testing has low imprecision, the various VWF activity assays have significant interassay variability, with VWF:RCo showing greater imprecision than the newer GPIb-binding assays. The overall trends in assay utilization reflect the barriers to complete compliance with modern VWD diagnostic guidelines in North America.

Context.— Assessing direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) drug levels by reliable laboratory assays is necessary in a number of clinical scenarios. Objective.— To evaluate the performance of DOAC-specific assays for various concentrations of dabigatran and rivaroxaban, assess the interlaboratory variability in measurement of these DOACs, and investigate the responsiveness of the routine clotting assays to various concentrations of these oral anticoagulants. Design.— College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey data from 2013 to 2016 were summarized and analyzed. Results.— For dabigatran, the interlaboratory coefficient of variation (CV) of ecarin chromogenic assay was broad (ranging from 7.5% to 29.1%, 6.3% to 15.5%, and 6.8% to 9.0% for 100-ng/mL, 200-ng/mL, and 400-ng/mL targeted drug concentrations, respectively). The CV for diluted thrombin time for dabigatran was better overall (ranging from 11.6% to 17.2%, 9.3% to 12.3, and 7.1% to 11.2% for 100 ng/mL, 200 ng/mL, and 400 ng/mL, respectively). The rivaroxaban-calibrated anti-Xa assay CVs also showed variability (ranging from 11.5% to 22.2%, 7.2% to 10.9%, and 6.4% to 8.1% for 50-ng/mL, 200-ng/mL, and 400-ng/mL targeted drug concentrations, respectively). The prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) showed variable dose- and reagent-dependent responsiveness to DOACs: PT was more responsive to rivaroxaban and aPTT to dabigatran. The undiluted thrombin time showed maximum prolongation across all 3 dabigatran concentrations, making it too sensitive for drug-level monitoring, but supporting its use as a qualitative screening assay. Conclusions.— DOAC-specific assays performed reasonably well. While PT and aPTT cannot be used safely to determine DOAC degree of anticoagulation, a normal thrombin time excludes the presence of dabigatran.

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.

AbstractImportanceNeuromyelitis optica/neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder patients' response to therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) is currently incompletely characterized.ObjectiveOur study aims to understand the clinical status improvement of neuromyelitis optica/neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder patients treated with TPE.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis is a multicenter retrospective study conducted between 1 January 2003 and 31 July 2017 at 13 US hospitals performing apheresis procedures. Subjects studied were diagnosed with neuromyelitis optica/neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder who received TPE during presentation with acute disease.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was clinical status improvement in patients treated with TPE. Secondary measures were procedural and patient characteristics associated with response to treatment.ResultsWe evaluated 114 patients from 13 institutions. There was a female predilection. The largest ethnic group affected was non‐Hispanic Caucasian. The average age of diagnosis was 43.1 years. The average time to diagnosis was 3.1 years. On average, five procedures were performed during each treatment series. The most commonly performed plasma volume exchange was 1.0 to 1.25 using 5% albumin as replacement fluid. Most patients (52%) did not require an additional course of TPE and noted “mild” to “moderate” clinical status improvement. Maximal symptom improvement appeared by the fourth or fifth TPE treatment.Conclusion and RelevanceTPE improved the clinical status of patients. Adults responded more favorably than children. Procedural characteristics, including number of TPEs, plasma volume exchanged, and replacement fluid used, were similar between institutions. TPE was well‐tolerated and had a low severe adverse event profile.

Context.— The College of American Pathologists (CAP) developed proficiency testing for platelet function assays by using blood collected by the participant added to challenge tubes containing either saline (normal) or tirofiban (abnormal). Objective.— To analyze platelet function proficiency testing for Platelet Function Analyzer PFA-100, platelet aggregation, PlateletWorks, and PlateletMapping. Design.— Proficiency testing data from 2012–2016 were analyzed. Results.— For PFA-100, a total of 1200 laboratories participated; the coefficient variation (CV) of cartridge closure times was 22% (saline); 44,952 of 45,616 survey responses (99%) provided an interpretation, and 42,934 of 44,952 (96%) were correct. For optical platelet aggregation, 190 laboratories participated; the CV was 17% (saline), 7444 of 7813 survey responses (95%) provided an interpretation, and 7015 of 7444 (94%) were correct. For PlateletWorks, 60 laboratories participated; the CV was 3% to 11% (saline); 2412 of 2454 survey responses (98%) provided an interpretation, and 1207 of 1276 (95%) were correct for adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and 936 of 1136 (82%) for collagen. For PlateletMapping, 200 laboratories participated. For ADP, 1128 of 2697 survey responses (42%) provided an interpretation, but only 927 of 1128 (82%) were correct. For arachidonic acid, 1139 of 2604 survey responses (44%) provided an interpretation and 964 of 1139 (85%) were correct. Conclusions.— CAP is the first to provide proficiency testing for platelet aggregation, PlateletWorks, and PlateletMapping. Platelet aggregation, PFA-100, and PlateletWorks using ADP as an agonist performed well with more than 90% of laboratories providing an interpretation and a similar number providing correct results. PlateletWorks using collagen and PlateletMapping showed worse interpretive accuracy than the other methods.

AbstractMany vascular access options, such as subcutaneous ports, are currently on the market for use in both medication infusion and for procedures, such as therapeutic plasma exchange and extracorporeal photopheresis. We compared the cost and time necessary to complete apheresis procedures using either Angiodynamic's Vortex or Bard's PowerFlow subcutaneous ports by reviewing our experience on two patients undergoing long‐term apheresis treatments with at least 10 procedures with each type of port. We analyzed the cost of needles and thrombolytic therapy, staff time, overall procedure length, and the total time the patient was in the apheresis unit. We also compared flow rates and alarm rates between the two ports. In this small pilot study, use of the PowerFlow port resulted in significant cost and time savings, with mixed results for flow rates. Our results need to be confirmed in a larger patient population prior to recommending wide implementation of Bard's PowerFlow port.

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.