Guidelines on the use of therapeutic apheresis in clinical practice--evidence-based approach from the Apheresis Applications Committee of the American Society for Apheresis.

The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Apheresis Applications Committee is charged with a review and categorization of indications for therapeutic apheresis. Beginning with the 2007 ASFA Special Issue (fourth edition), the subcommittee has incorporated systematic review and evidence-based approach in the grading and categorization of indications. This Fifth ASFA Special Issue has further improved the process of using evidence-based medicine in the recommendations by refining the category definitions and by adding a grade of recommendation based on widely accepted GRADE system. The concept of a fact sheet was introduced in the Fourth edition and is only slightly modified in this current edition. The fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of therapeutic apheresis. The article consists of 59 fact sheets devoted to each disease entity currently categorized by the ASFA as category I through III. Category IV indications are also listed

Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice-Evidence-Based Approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: The Sixth Special Issue

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. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

Category IV indications for therapeutic apheresis: ASFA fourth special issue

The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Committee on Clinical Applications systematically and critically reviews published information on the use of therapeutic apheresis in clinical practice. On the basis of this review, selected diseases are assigned one of five categories (category I, II, III, IV, and P). The diseases, which were classified as category IV indications, and the rationale for such assignment are reviewed in this article. The diseases assigned to category I, II, III, and newly created category P are discussed in a separate article in this issue

Guidelines on the use of therapeutic apheresis in clinical practice: evidence-based approach from the Apheresis Applications Committee of the American Society for Apheresis

The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Apheresis Applications Committee is charged with a review and categorization of indications for therapeutic apheresis. This elaborate process had been undertaken every 7 years resulting in three prior publications in 1986, 1993, and 2000 of The ASFA Special Issues. This article is the integral part of the Fourth ASFA Special Issue. The Fourth ASFA Special Issue is significantly modified in comparison to the previous editions. A new concept of a fact sheet has been introduced. The fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of therapeutic apheresis. A detailed description of the fact sheet is provided. The article consists of 53 fact sheets devoted to each disease entity currently categorized by the ASFA. Categories I, II, and III are defined as previously in the Third Special Issue. However, a few new therapeutic apheresis modalities, not yet approved in the United States or are currently in clinical trials, have been assigned category P (pending) by the ASFA Clinical Categories Subcommittee. The diseases assigned to category IV are discussed in a separate article in this issue

Consensus International Council for Commonality in Blood Banking Automation-International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy statement on standard nomenclature abbreviations for the tissue of origin of mesenchymal stromal cells

The Cellular Therapy Coding and Labeling Advisory Group of the International Council for Commonality in Blood Banking Automation and the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) com-mittee are providing specific recommendations on abbreviating tissue sources of culture-adapted MSCs. These rec-ommendations include using abbreviations based on the ISBT 128 terminology model that specifies standard class names to distinguish cell types and tissue sources for culture-adapted MSCs. Thus, MSCs from bone marrow are MSC(M), MSCs from cord blood are MSC(CB), MSCs from adipose tissue are MSC(AT) and MSCs from Wharton's jelly are MSC(WJ). Additional recommendations include using these abbreviations through the full spectrum of pre-clini-cal, translational and clinical research for the development of culture-adapted MSC products. This does not apply to basic research focused on investigating the developmental origins, identity or functionalities of endogenous progen-itor cells in different tissues. These recommendations will serve to harmonize nomenclature in describing research and development surrounding culture-adapted MSCs, many of which are destined for clinical and/or commercial translation. These recommendations will also serve to align research and development efforts on culture-adapted MSCs with other cell therapy products. (c) 2021 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Obstetric and Newborn Weak D-Phenotype RBC Testing and Rh Immune Globulin Management Recommendations: Lessons From a Blinded Specimen-Testing Survey of 81 Transfusion Services

CONTEXT.—: Modern RHD genotyping can be used to determine when patients with serologic weak D phenotypes have RHD gene variants at risk for anti-D alloimmunization. However, serologic testing, RhD interpretations, and laboratory management of these patients are quite variable. OBJECTIVE.—: To obtain interlaboratory comparisons of serologic testing, RhD interpretations, Rh immune globulin (RhIG) management, fetomaternal hemorrhage testing, and RHD genotyping for weak D-reactive specimens. DESIGN.—: We devised an educational exercise in which 81 transfusion services supporting obstetrics performed tube-method RhD typing on 2 unknown red blood cell challenge specimens identified as (1) maternal and (2) newborn. Both specimens were from the same weak D-reactive donor. The exercise revealed how participants responded to these different clinical situations. RESULTS.—: Of reporting laboratories, 14% (11 of 80) obtained discrepant immediate-spin reactions on the 2 specimens. Nine different reporting terms were used to interpret weak D-reactive maternal RhD types to obstetricians. In laboratories obtaining negative maternal immediate-spin reactions, 28% (16 of 57) performed unwarranted antiglobulin testing, sometimes leading to recommendations against giving RhIG. To screen for excess fetomaternal hemorrhage after a weak D-reactive newborn, 47% (34 of 73) of reporting laboratories would have employed a contraindicated fetal rosette test, risking false-negative results and inadequate RhIG coverage. Sixty percent (44 of 73) of laboratories would obtain RHD genotyping in some or all cases. CONCLUSIONS.—: For obstetric and neonatal patients with serologic weak D phenotypes, we found several critical problems in transfusion service laboratory practices. We provide recommendations for appropriate testing, consistent immunohematologic terminology, and RHD genotype-guided management of Rh immune globulin therapy and RBC transfusions