National heart, lung, and blood institute state of the science symposium in therapeutic apheresis-Therapeutic apheresis in cardiovascular disease

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

The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Journal of Clinical Apheresis (JCA) Special Issue Writing Committee is charged with reviewing, updating and categorizing indications for the evidence-based use of therapeutic apheresis (TA) in human disease. Since the 2007 JCA Special Issue (Fourth Edition), the committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence-based approaches in the grading and categorization of apheresis indications. This Eighth Edition of the JCA Special Issue continues to maintain this methodology and rigor in order to make recommendations on the use of apheresis in a wide variety of diseases/conditions. The JCA Eighth Edition, like its predecessor, continues to apply the category and grading system definitions in fact sheets. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was introduced in the Fourth Edition, has largely been maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of TA in a specific disease entity or medical condition. The Eighth Edition comprises 84 fact sheets for relevant diseases and medical conditions, with 157 graded and categorized indications and/or TA modalities. The Eighth Edition of the JCA Special Issue seeks to continue to serve as a key resource that guides the utilization of TA in the treatment of human disease.

Frequency of Alterations in Apheresis-Related Abstracts Prior to Publications as Peer-Reviewed Articles

High-quality evidence supporting clinical practice is lacking in apheresis. A potential source of evidence is provided by abstracts submitted to the Annual Meetings of the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) and the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA). However, there is potential for study conclusions to be altered significantly following abstract presentations prior to publications in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, we evaluated the discordance rate between apheresis-related meeting abstracts and their corresponding published articles. Abstracts accepted to either AABB or ASFA Annual Meetings from 2005 to 2012 and corresponding PubMed-indexed peer-reviewed articles' abstracts published prior to 9/2014 were reviewed for altered methods, results, and conclusions. When present, changes were evaluated for clinical significance. During the 8-year period, 198 out of 1152 abstracts were published as peer-reviewed articles. Of these, 36 (18.2%) presented discordant results, six of which (16.7%) were potentially clinically significant. An alteration in results (58.3%) was the leading reason for discordance. The discordance rate for ASFA abstracts was significantly higher (HR = 4.69, P = 0.0028) than the AABB ones. However, clinically significant alterations occurred more frequently among AABB abstracts (P = 0.025). Approximately 18% of meeting abstracts demonstrated alterations prior to publication in peer-reviewed journals. Given that approximately one in six changes represented clinically significant alterations, potentially affecting clinical practice, we recommend caution when modifying one's clinical practice based on abstract presentations at Annual Meetings. Future studies involving abstracts from both the International Society for Apheresis and the World Apheresis Association should also be performed.

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

The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Journal of Clinical Apheresis (JCA) Special Issue Writing Committee is charged with reviewing, updating, and categorizing indications for the evidence-based use of therapeutic apheresis in human disease. Since the 2007 JCA Special Issue (Fourth Edition), the Committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence-based approaches in the grading and categorization of apheresis indications. This Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue continues to maintain this methodology and rigor to make recommendations on the use of apheresis in a wide variety of diseases/conditions. The JCA Seventh Edition, like its predecessor, has consistently applied the category and grading system definitions in the fact sheets. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was used since the fourth edition has largely been maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of therapeutic apheresis in a specific disease entity. The Seventh Edition discusses 87 fact sheets (14 new fact sheets since the Sixth Edition) for therapeutic apheresis diseases and medical conditions, with 179 indications, which are separately graded and categorized within the listed fact sheets. Several diseases that are Category IV which have been described in detail in previous editions and do not have significant new evidence since the last publication are summarized in a separate table. The Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue serves as a key resource that guides the utilization of therapeutic apheresis in the treatment of human disease. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:149-162, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Apheresis research-more abstracts should be published as full manuscripts to provide more evidence for clinical practice guidelines

High-quality evidence to support clinical practice is lacking in apheresis medicine compared to other therapeutic modalities. A potential source of evidence comes from the abstracts submitted to the Annual Meetings of the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA). Therefore, the goal of this study is to determine the proportion of abstracts from the 2005 to 2012 ASFA Annual Meetings that subsequently became PubMed-indexed publications. Furthermore, we sought to determine the factor(s) that were associated with the likelihood of abstracts to be published as full manuscripts. During the 8-year study period, 684 abstracts were available for analysis (median: 82/year, range: 64-118). Most abstracts (74%) were from US institutions, and 67% of first authors were affiliated with academic centers. There were more abstracts (64%) on therapeutic versus donor apheresis (20%) and cellular therapy (16%). Overall, 16% of the abstracts have been published in PubMed-indexed journals, with a median time of 17 months from the ASFA Annual Meeting (range: 1-96 months). Abstracts whose first authors were affiliated with academic institutions were 3.14 times more likely to have been published than abstracts with ones affiliated with an apheresis organization and/or a community hospital. However, neither the first author's location nor the type of apheresis procedure significantly affected the publication rate after adjusting for other covariates. In conclusion, the rate of publication is low and authors should be encouraged to follow their presentations at the meeting with peer-reviewed manuscripts. This change is essential to provide more published evidence for future apheresis practice guidelines. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:353-358, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.