Red cell exchange for a case of babesiosis

Red Cell Exchange as Adjunctive Therapy for Babesiosis: Is it Really Effective?

Human babesiosis is a parasitic disease prevalent in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States (US). Treatment with antibiotics is the standard of care but red cell exchange (RCE) has been used as an adjunctive treatment in more severe disease. Data for the efficacy of RCE in the treatment of babesiosis has been based on case reports and case series. An English language literature search was conducted for cases of babesiosis treated with RCE since 1980 and relevant laboratory and clinical outcome data were extracted. Similar data were obtained on severe cases of babesiosis referred for RCE in our hospitals in the time period 2000 to 2020. Fifty reports including forty-one individual case reports and nine case series were retrieved. There were 108 patients that underwent RCE with an overall mortality rate of 20%. Some patients had more than one RCE. The patients varied in the level of anemia and evidence of compromise of renal or pulmonary function. The pre-RCE level of parasitemia varied between 1.7% to 85% with the vast majority >10%. The post-RCE level of parasitemia varied between 1% to 10%. Since 2000, 32 patients were referred for RCE in our hospitals and RCE was performed on 23 of 32. There were more patients treated with RCE in the second decade as compared to the first decade, 19 versus 4 respectively. The overall mortality was 22% similar to the national data. Comparing the cohort treated with RCE to the 9 patients who were treated only with antibiotics, there were similar levels of parasitemia and laboratory parameters. The overall number of days needed to achieve a parasite count <1% was similar between the two cohorts and mortality for the antibiotics only cohort was 0%. More than 40 years after the first reported case of RCE in severe babesiosis it cannot be concluded that this adjunctive therapy favorably influences the clinical outcome. Since there is largely equipoise, a registry of severe patients treated with or without RCE could identify a benefit or otherwise.

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.

The use of cytapheresis in the treatment of infectious diseases

Cytapheresis (removal of cellular blood components) has been employed for treatment of infectious diseases since the 1960s. Techniques have included thrombocytapheresis (buffy coat apheresis) for loiasis, erythrocytapheresis for malaria and babesiosis, and leukocytapheresis for pertussis-associated lymphocytosis. Published data on these applications is largely limited to case level data and small observational studies; as such, recommendations for or against the use of cytapheresis in the treatment of infections have been extrapolated from these limited (and at times flawed) data sets. Consequently, utilization of cytapheresis in many instances is not uniform between institutions, and typically occurs at the discretion of treating medical teams. This review revisits the existing literature on the use of cytapheresis in the treatment of four infections (loasis, malaria, babesiosis, and pertussis) and examines the rationale underlying current treatment recommendations concerning its use.