Rh immune globulin immunoprophylaxis after RhD-positive red cell exposure in RhD-negative patients via transfusion: A survey of practices.

BACKGROUND: Current 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. RESULTS: Approximately 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. DISCUSSION: With 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. CONCLUSION: This 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.

Successful treatment of pure red cell aplasia using therapeutic plasma exchange after ABO-incompatible hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCTs) are widely used in the treatment of hematologic malignancies and bone marrow failure syndromes. ABO compatibility is typically of secondary importance, and up to 50% of HSCT are performed in ABO-incompatible pairings. In the literature, pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) occurs in 1% to 50% of all major/bidirectional ABO-incompatible stem cell transplants, but treatment of PRCA remains heterogeneous. Here, we report two cases in which patients with transfusion-dependent PRCA following HSCT were successfully treated with therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE). Case 1: A 52-year-old type O-positive male with acute myeloid leukemia underwent HSCT using apheresis-derived HSCs from a fully human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched, related type A-positive male donor. He developed PRCA that was refractory to multiple therapies, so a series of 10 TPE was performed over 3 weeks. Case 2: A 21-year-old type A-positive male with aplastic anemia underwent HSCT using bone marrow-derived HSCs from a fully HLA-matched related type B-positive female donor. He developed PRCA that was refractory to multiple therapies, so a series of 5 TPE was performed over 2 weeks. Case 1: The patient has been transfusion independent since TPE #7, and type A red blood cells (RBCs) were seen on the ABO type after TPE #9. Case 2: The patient has been transfusion independent since after TPE #1, and type B RBCs were seen on the ABO type after TPE #5. TPE was successful in treating two patients with PRCA after ABO-incompatible HSCT transplants. Isoagglutinin titers decreased below the level of detection for both our patients. Ultimately both patients became transfusion independent and showed evidence of erythroid cell recovery.

How do I perform therapeutic phlebotomy?

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic phlebotomy (TP) is a well-established medical intervention that evolved from the historical practice of bloodletting. METHODS: Patients who require TP are not infrequently told by their health-care providers to "just go donate blood," but TP should always be offered in the context of a prescribed course of therapy. Providers can prescribe a course of TP for a number of indications, including hereditary hemochromatosis, polycythemia vera, iron overload, and testosterone replacement therapy. RESULTS: A course of prescribed TP specifies that patients can be phlebotomized more frequently than volunteer blood donors and reassures patients that TP is being performed per the orders of their provider. Prescribed TP also facilitates two-way communication between the referring provider and the transfusion medicine (TM) physician overseeing the TP. The College of American Pathologists TM checklist describes several requirements regarding the documentation and performance of TP, and electronic medical record systems can be used to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. CONCLUSIONS: TM physicians should discuss the advantages of prescribing TP with providers who mutually care for patients requiring this intervention.

Therapeutic plasma exchange in patients with severe obesity (BMI >40): A survey of practices in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity in the United States is estimated at 42.4% and expected to increase over the next decade. Therefore, understanding how to best perform certain medical procedures on severely obese (SO) patients is a necessity. This study presents results on the current methods of performing therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) on SO patients. This paper aims to contribute to the existing literature by providing new insights into calculating plasma volume (PV) for TPE in SO patients. METHODS: Blood Bank/Apheresis Directors at all institutions with pathology residency and/or blood banking/transfusion medicine fellowship programs were asked to complete a 5-question online survey about their institutional policies regarding TPE in SO patients. Survey data were analyzed to determine if institutions have policies in place to calculate PV in SO patients. RESULTS: Out of the 144 institutions contacted, 45 (31%) completed the survey. Nine (20%) institutions had a policy to calculate PV differently for SO patients, 7 (16%) reported a specific body mass index (BMI) above which they alter PV calculation, and 7 (16%) reported a maximum volume exchanged in SO patients. CONCLUSION: A minority of responding institutions had specific policies in place to calculate PV for TPE in SO patients. Practice patterns for calculating PV for TPE in SO patients varied, with some institutions adjusting PV calculations and others setting a maximum volume to be exchanged regardless of BMI. These findings highlight the need for establishing a clear method of calculating PV in SO patients.

Critical developments of 2017: a review of the literature from selected topics in transfusion. A committee report from the AABB Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee.

BACKGROUND: The AABB compiles an annual synopsis of the published literature covering important developments in the field of Transfusion Medicine. For the first time, an abridged version of this work is being made available in TRANSFUSION, with the full-length report available as an Appendix S1 (available as supporting information in the online version of this paper). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Papers published in 2016 and early 2017 are included, as well as earlier papers cited for background. Although this synopsis is comprehensive, it is not exhaustive, and some papers may have been excluded or missed. RESULTS: The following topics are covered: duration of red blood cell storage and clinical outcomes, blood donor characteristics and patient outcomes, reversal of bleeding in hemophilia and for patients on direct oral anticoagulants, transfusion approach to hemorrhagic shock, pathogen inactivation, pediatric transfusion medicine, therapeutic apheresis, and extracorporeal support. CONCLUSION: This synopsis may be a useful educational tool.

Continued Positive Job Search Experience for New Pathologists Seeking First Employment During the COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-2022).

CONTEXT.­: As pathologists retire and leave the field, it is critical to accurately capture employment trends for new-in-practice pathologists. There is always interest in the job market for newly graduated pathology trainees and prospective pathology trainees, but it is unclear how the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the job search experience. OBJECTIVE.­: To provide an update on trends gleaned from a survey of pathology graduates' job search experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN.­: We analyzed data from an annual job search survey sent by the College of American Pathologists Graduate Medical Education Committee between 2020 and 2022 to College of American Pathologists junior members and fellows in practice 3 years or less actively looking for a nonfellowship position. Various indicators of the job search experience were compared year to year and with the data previously published 2017 to 2019 and 2012 to 2016. RESULTS.­: Analysis revealed continued positive trends between the 2020 to 2022 data and the data from 2017 to 2019 and 2012 to 2016. This includes continued ease in finding positions, continued availability of jobs in the subspecialty of choice, continued satisfaction with the positions accepted, and, notably, higher starting salaries. CONCLUSIONS.­: Despite the many challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, job market trends for newly graduated pathology trainees continue to be favorable with respect to multiple indicators compared with 2 prior periods, 2017 to 2019 and 2012 to 2016.

Leadership perspectives on osteopathic medical school applicants to pathology residency training.

The number of graduating allopathic (MD) medical students matching into pathology has declined in recent years, while the number of osteopathic (DO) medical students has increased modestly, given the rapid expansion of osteopathic medical schools. Nonscholarly publications and materials on the internet often perpetuate negative perceptions of osteopathic physicians. Anecdotally, perspectives exist that some pathology residency programs are not DO-friendly; however, the reasons and how widespread an effect this might be are unclear. Our survey queried pathology chairs and residency program directors about their perceptions of osteopathic applicants and their knowledge of osteopathic medical school/training in general. This study utilized two similar, parallel surveys of pathology chairs and residency program directors with general questions structured around the perceptions and knowledge of both allopathic and osteopathic physicians, their medical training, and the consideration of osteopathic applicants to pathology residency. Pathology residency leaders acknowledge some negative perceptions of osteopathic physicians in the medical profession, the news, and social media. They also have some knowledge and perception gaps regarding osteopathic training and applicants, although experience with training osteopathic physicians as residents has been equivalent to that with allopathic physicians, and consideration appears to be fairly equal for osteopathic applicants. Even though negative perceptions of osteopathic physicians persist in news and social media, our surveys demonstrate that the leadership of pathology residency programs does not hold the same degree of bias and that DOs perform well in allopathic pathology residency programs without evidence of inferior outcomes.

Experiential exposure as the key to recruiting medical students into pathology.

Medical student interest and pursuit of a career in pathology have been steadily declining since 2015. We conducted three separate surveys of medical students to better understand these trends. In our first survey, we focused on assessing U.S. allopathic medical students understanding and perceptions of pathology. We later surveyed U.S. osteopathic medical students as a companion to the allopathic medical student survey, in which many similarities were discovered with some key differences. In our final survey, we specifically looked at curriculum differences between the U.S. allopathic medical schools that graduate the most students who enter pathology training programs (Group 1) versus those schools that graduate the fewest future pathologists (Group 2) to determine if the curriculum had an impact on medical student matriculation into pathology. Together, through these surveys, we were able to identify several remarkable recurring trends, presenting areas of targetable action. Here, we summarize themes from the three studies as well as a review of pertinent literature to offer best practices for exposing and engaging medical students to pathology and possibly recruiting students to consider pathology as a career.

How influential are medical school curriculum and other medical school characteristics in students' selecting pathology as a specialty?

There has been a significant decline in the number of United States allopathic medical students matching to pathology residency programs. Data acquired from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) show sustained variation in the medical school production of students who go on to pathology residency. When divided into groups based on the medical school's historical volume of graduates entering pathology, the schools in groups labeled Group 1 and Group 2 produced significantly higher and lower proportions of pathology residents, respectively. This study aimed to identify what medical school curriculum elements and other medical school characteristics might explain the differences observed in the AAMC data. The Dean or another undergraduate medical education contact from the Group 1 and Group 2 schools was invited to participate in an interview. Pathology Program Directors and Pathology Department Chairs were also included in communications. Thirty interviews were completed with equal numbers from each group. Interview questions probed pathology experiences, existence, and structure of a pathology interest group, options for post-sophomore fellowships, recent curriculum changes, and the extent of mentoring programs. Surprisingly, the curriculum does not appear to be a predictor of a medical school's production of students who enter pathology residency. A significantly greater percentage of Group 1 schools are public institutions compared to Group 2 schools. Other factors that may increase the number of students who go into pathology include mentoring, active learning versus observation, and post-sophomore fellowships or other opportunities to work in the capacity of a new pathology resident.

Optimizing Utilization of Blood Products in the Hematologic Malignancy Clinic: Less Is More.

PURPOSE: There are no universal guidelines for blood product transfusions in patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs). Excess utilization of platelet and RBC transfusion in patients with HM increases the cost of care and likelihood of adverse events. We aim to decrease the total number of transfused units and multiunit orders of platelets and RBCs in the HM clinic by 25% from March 2020 to December 2020. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, interprofessional team was formed. Baseline rates of blood product utilization were determined using Qlik Analytic software. Strategies to improve utilization were developed, and three interventions were initiated. Data were collected on monthly intervals. Data for total number of platelet and RBC units ordered, total multiunit orders, average number of units ordered per encounter, and pretransfusion hemoglobin thresholds were collected from May 2019 to December 2020. RESULTS: Through our Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles from March 2020 to December 2020, the total number of platelet transfusion orders per month decreased from 164 to 98, multiunit platelet orders decreased from 63 to 2, and the average number of platelet transfusions per encounter decreased from 1.62 to 1.03. The total number of RBC transfusion orders decreased from 172 to 141, multiunit RBC orders decreased from 25 to 16, and the average number of RBC transfusions per encounter decreased from 1.21 to 1.18. CONCLUSION: Implementation of our multidisciplinary interventions led to more appropriate use of blood products in the outpatient setting. Ongoing efforts are underway to continue to improve utilization in the inpatient and outpatient setting.

Factors influencing US osteopathic medical students to choose pathology as a specialty.

The decline in the number of US allopathic (Medical Doctor or M.D.) medical students matching to pathology residency has been a topic of much discussion at national pathology professional society meetings and in recent publications. A recent survey of fourth-year allopathic medicals students was conducted to better understand the rationale behind students' interest or lack thereof in pathology as a specialty. This study utilizes a similar survey tool gauging osteopathic (Doctor of Osteopathy or D.O.) student knowledge and interest in pathology, and offers insight into a possible growth market for the specialty. Similar to allopathic students, osteopathic students noted that clinical or research opportunities in pathology during medical school, autopsy observation/participation, and participation in pathology interest groups correlated with a greater likelihood of selecting pathology as a specialty. However, some key differences in osteopathic medical school curricular elements including microscope use, gross pathology specimen demonstrations, case-based learning by pathologists, exposure to pathology during other rotations, awareness of a pathology interest group, as well as an overall understanding of the everyday work of a pathologist were noted. Experiential exposure to pathology, and direct mentorship from pathologists may present an opportunity for pathology professional organizations, and pathology residency programs to partner with osteopathic medical schools to increase interest in the field, and aid in pipeline development.

Transfusion-Transmitted Babesiosis.

Babesiosis is most commonly caused by Babesia microti and is transmitted via the bite of an infected Ixodes spp tick. However, Babesia is also transmitted via blood transfusion. In the United States, the first case of transfusion-transmitted babesiosis was recognized in 1979, and in recent years, the incidence has rapidly increased. Because most of the infected blood donors do not experience any symptoms, they pose a significant risk to the blood supply. Donor deferral for a history of babesiosis is currently performed but is ineffective. In March 2018, the FDA licensed a DNA PCR and antibody assay that were used in tandem in pivotal trials for screening blood donors for B microti; with other assays still being evaluated under investigational new drug protocols. Blood donation screening is essential to reducing the risk of transfusion-transmitted babesiosis, which is why blood centers collecting in geographic regions of highest risk have been testing since approximately 2010. Investigational NAT assays of higher sensitivity are pending FDA review. Further, in July 2018, the FDA issued a draft guidance for reducing the risk of transfusion-transmitted babesiosis. Release of the final guidance may be postponed until sensitivities and specificities of all current and potential strategies have been properly evaluated.

Economic Implications of Pathogen Reduced and Bacterially Tested Platelet Components: A US Hospital Budget Impact Model.

BACKGROUND: US FDA draft guidance includes pathogen reduction (PR) or secondary rapid bacterial testing (RT) in its recommendations for mitigating risk of platelet component (PC) bacterial contamination. An interactive budget impact model was created for hospitals to use when considering these technologies. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel model was built and populated with base-case costs and probabilities identified through literature search and a survey of US hospital transfusion service directors. Annual costs of PC acquisition, testing, wastage, dispensing/transfusion, sepsis, shelf life, and reimbursement for a mid-sized hospital that purchases all of its PCs were compared for four scenarios: 100% conventional PCs (C-PC), 100% RT-PC, 100% PR-PC, and 50% RT-PC/50% PR-PC. RESULTS: Annual total costs were US$3.64, US$3.67, and US$3.96 million when all platelets were C-PC, RT-PC, or PR-PC, respectively, or US$3.81 million in the 50% RT-PC/50% PR-PC scenario. The annual net cost of PR-PC, obtained by subtracting annual reimbursements from annual total costs, is 6.18% above that of RT-PC. Maximum usable shelf lives for C-PC, RT-PC, and PR-PC are 3.0, 5.0, and 3.6 days, respectively; hospitals obtain PR-PC components earliest at 1.37 days. CONCLUSION: The model predicts minimal cost increase for PR-PC versus RT-PC, including cost offsets such as elimination of bacterial detection and irradiation, and reimbursement. Additional safety provided by PR, including risk mitigation of transfusion-transmission of a broad spectrum of viruses, parasites, and emerging pathogens, may justify this increase. Effective PC shelf life may increase with RT, but platelets can be available sooner with PR due to elimination of bacterial detection, depending on blood center logistics.

Cost of Purchased Versus Produced Plasma from Donor Recruitment Through Transfusion.

BACKGROUND: Plasma is used to treat acquired coagulopathy or thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, or to reverse warfarin effect. Scant data are available, however, about its costs. OBJECTIVE: To estimate total costs of plasma from production through administration, from the perspective of a US hospital blood donor center (BDC). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Six sequential decision analytic models were constructed and informed by primary and secondary data on time, tasks, personnel, and supplies for donation, processing, and administration. Expected values of the models were summed to yield the BDC's total cost of producing, preparing, and transfusing plasma. Costs ($US 2015) are reported for a typical patient using three units of plasma. Models assume plasma was obtained from whole blood donation and transfused in an inpatient setting. Univariate sensitivity analyses were performed to test the impact of changing inputs for personnel costs and adverse event (AE) rates and costs. RESULTS: BDC production cost of plasma was $91.24/patient ($30.41/unit), a $30.16/patient savings versus purchased plasma. Administration and monitoring costs totaled $194.64/patient. Sensitivity analyses indicated that modifying BDC personnel costs during donation and processing has little impact on total plasma costs. However, the probability and cost of transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO) have a significant impact on costs. CONCLUSION: Plasma produced by our BDC may be less costly than purchased plasma. Though plasma processes have multiple tasks involving staff time, these are not the largest cost driver. Major plasma-related AEs are uncommon, but are the biggest driver of total plasma costs.