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.

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

Institutional Affiliations Chair Costanzo MR: Midwest Heart Foundation, Lombard Illinois, USA Task Force 1 Dipchand A: Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto Ontario, Canada; Starling R: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Anderson A: University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Chan M: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Desai S: Inova Fairfax Hospital, Fairfax, Virginia, USA; Fedson S: University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Fisher P: Ochsner Clinic, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA; Gonzales-Stawinski G: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Martinelli L: Ospedale Niguarda, Milano, Italy; McGiffin D: University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Parisi F: Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesu, Rome, Italy; Smith J: Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Task Force 2 Taylor D: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Meiser B: University of Munich/Grosshaden, Munich, Germany; Baran D: Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, Newark, New Jersey, USA; Carboni M: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA; Dengler T: University of Hidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Feldman D: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Frigerio M: Ospedale Niguarda, Milano, Italy; Kfoury A: Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah, USA; Kim D: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Kobashigawa J: Cedar-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA; Shullo M: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Stehlik J: University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; Teuteberg J: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Uber P: University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Zuckermann A: University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Task Force 3 Hunt S: Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA; Burch M: Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK; Bhat G: Advocate Christ Medical Center, Oak Lawn, Illinois, USA; Canter C: St. Louis Children Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA; Chinnock R: Loma Linda University Children's Hospital, Loma Linda, California, USA; Crespo-Leiro M: Hospital Universitario A Coruna, La Coruna, Spain; Delgado R: Texas Heart Institute, Houston, Texas, USA; Dobbels F: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Grady K: Northwestern University, Chicago, Illlinois, USA; Kao W: University of Wisconsin, Madison Wisconsin, USA; Lamour J: Montefiore Medical Center, New York, New York, USA; Parry G: Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Patel J: Cedar-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA; Pini D: Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy; Pinney S: Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York, USA; Towbin J: Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; Wolfel G: University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, USA Independent Reviewers Delgado D: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Eisen H: Drexler University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Goldberg L: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Hosenpud J: Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA; Johnson M: University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA; Keogh A: St Vincent Hospital, Sidney, New South Wales, Australia; Lewis C: Papworth Hospital Cambridge, UK; O'Connell J: St. Joseph Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Rogers J: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA; Ross H: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Russell S: Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Vanhaecke J: University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.

http://www.jsht.jp/uploads/ISHLT_GL_TaskForce2_110810.pdf

The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the care of heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND The introduction of solid-phase immunoassay (SPI) technology for the detection and characterization of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies in transplantation while providing greater sensitivity than was obtainable by complement-dependent lymphocytotoxicity (CDC) assays has resulted in a new paradigm with respect to the interpretation of donor-specific antibodies (DSA). Although the SPI assay performed on the Luminex instrument (hereafter referred to as the Luminex assay), in particular, has permitted the detection of antibodies not detectable by CDC, the clinical significance of these antibodies is incompletely understood. Nevertheless, the detection of these antibodies has led to changes in the clinical management of sensitized patients. In addition, SPI testing raises technical issues that require resolution and careful consideration when interpreting antibody results. METHODS With this background, The Transplantation Society convened a group of laboratory and clinical experts in the field of transplantation to prepare a consensus report and make recommendations on the use of this new technology based on both published evidence and expert opinion. Three working groups were formed to address (a) the technical issues with respect to the use of this technology, (b) the interpretation of pretransplantation antibody testing in the context of various clinical settings and organ transplant types (kidney, heart, lung, liver, pancreas, intestinal, and islet cells), and (c) the application of antibody testing in the posttransplantation setting. The three groups were established in November 2011 and convened for a "Consensus Conference on Antibodies in Transplantation" in Rome, Italy, in May 2012. The deliberations of the three groups meeting independently and then together are the bases for this report. RESULTS A comprehensive list of recommendations was prepared by each group. A summary of the key recommendations follows. Technical Group: (a) SPI must be used for the detection of pretransplantation HLA antibodies in solid organ transplant recipients and, in particular, the use of the single-antigen bead assay to detect antibodies to HLA loci, such as Cw, DQA, DPA, and DPB, which are not readily detected by other methods. (b) The use of SPI for antibody detection should be supplemented with cell-based assays to examine the correlations between the two types of assays and to establish the likelihood of a positive crossmatch (XM). (c) There must be an awareness of the technical factors that can influence the results and their clinical interpretation when using the Luminex bead technology, such as variation in antigen density and the presence of denatured antigen on the beads. Pretransplantation Group: (a) Risk categories should be established based on the antibody and the XM results obtained. (b) DSA detected by CDC and a positive XM should be avoided due to their strong association with antibody-mediated rejection and graft loss. (c) A renal transplantation can be performed in the absence of a prospective XM if single-antigen bead screening for antibodies to all class I and II HLA loci is negative. This decision, however, needs to be taken in agreement with local clinical programs and the relevant regulatory bodies. (d) The presence of DSA HLA antibodies should be avoided in heart and lung transplantation and considered a risk factor for liver, intestinal, and islet cell transplantation. Posttransplantation Group: (a) High-risk patients (i.e., desensitized or DSA positive/XM negative) should be monitored by measurement of DSA and protocol biopsies in the first 3 months after transplantation. (b) Intermediate-risk patients (history of DSA but currently negative) should be monitored for DSA within the first month. If DSA is present, a biopsy should be performed. (c) Low-risk patients (nonsensitized first transplantation) should be screened for DSA at least once 3 to 12 months after transplantation. If DSA is detected, a biopsy should be performed. In all three categories, the recommendations for subsequent treatment are based on the biopsy results. CONCLUSIONS A comprehensive list of recommendations is provided covering the technical and pretransplantation and posttransplantation monitoring of HLA antibodies in solid organ transplantation. The recommendations are intended to provide state-of-the-art guidance in the use and clinical application of recently developed methods for HLA antibody detection when used in conjunction with traditional methods.

https://www.nefro.cl/DOCS/evento1/papers/Consesus_Guide_lines_Anti-HLA_2013_Dr.%20Jimenez.pdf

Consensus guidelines on the testing and clinical management issues associated with HLA and non-HLA antibodies in transplantation.

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. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Guidelines on the use of therapeutic apheresis in clinical practice - Evidence-based approach from the writing committee of the american society for apheresis

Cardiac hypertrophy is a major risk factor for heart failure and associated patient morbidity and mortality. Research investigating the aberrant molecular processes that occur during cardiac hypertrophy uses primary cardiomyocytes from neonatal rat hearts as the standard experimental in vitro system. In addition, some studies make use of the H9C2 rat cardiomyoblast cell line, which has the advantage of being an animal-free alternative; however, the extent to which H9C2 cells can accurately mimic the hypertrophic responses of primary cardiac myocytes has not yet been fully established. To address this limitation, we have directly compared the hypertrophic responses of H9C2 cells with those of primary rat neonatal cardiomyocytes following stimulation with hypertrophic factors. Primary rat neonatal cardiomyocytes and H9C2 cells were cultured in vitro and treated with angiotensin II and endothelin-1 to promote hypertrophic responses. An increase in cellular footprint combined with rearrangement of cytoskeleton and induction of foetal heart genes were directly compared in both cell types using microscopy and real-time rtPCR. H9C2 cells showed almost identical hypertrophic responses to those observed in primary cardiomyocytes. This finding validates the importance of H9C2 cells as a model for in vitro studies of cardiac hypertrophy and supports current work with human cardiomyocyte cell lines for prospective molecular studies in heart development and disease.

The H9C2 cell line and primary neonatal cardiomyocyte cells show similar hypertrophic responses in vitro

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(06)00326-7/pdf

Donation after Cardiac Death in the US: History and Use

Previously, we reported that the combination of plasmapheresis (PP) and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) allow sensitized patients to undergo orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT), even across a positive crossmatch. In the current study, the effect of that combination, PP+IVIg, on survival of a larger group of such recipients is investigated. The latter group (I) consisted of 35 sensitized patients who received PP+IVIG together with standard immunosuppressive drugs. Rejection was seen in 11 patients, findings strongly suggestive of a vascular (humoral) being identified in five of those cases. Four deaths occurred, two of them in the immediate post-operative period, one after almost six months, and one after almost two yr post-OHT. Follow-up range 4.5 months to 7.8 yr post-OHT (average=1.1 yr). Patient survival was analyzed after generation of a Kaplan-Meier plot. Comparison with a control OHT group (II) given standard immunosuppressive drugs only (N=276) showed enhanced survival of group I (p=0.0414 by log-rank test). We conclude that the combination of PP and IVIG (i) is associated with declines in T- and B-percent-reactive antibody and in crossmatch positivity, and (ii) is very useful in the management of the sensitized cardiac patient undergoing OHT, often allowing a successful outcome to transplantation in the face of a positive crossmatch.

Management of the sensitized cardiac recipient: the use of plasmapheresis and intravenous immunoglobulin.

Effect of older donor age on risk for mortality after heart transplantation

Intralobar sequestration in the middle-aged and elderly adult: recognition and radiographic evaluation.

Background Organ availability limits use of heart transplantation for treatment for end-stage heart disease. Hearts are currently obtained from donors declared brain dead (heart-beating donors [HBDs]). Although use of hearts from non–heart-beating donors (NHBDs) could reduce the shortage, they are considered unusable because of possible peri-mortem ischemic injury. Methods To project how use of NHBD hearts could increase heart donation, we retrospectively reviewed donor databases from the Gift of Life Donor Program (GLDP), our local organ procurement organization, from 2001 through 2003. We screened the NHBD population using conservative donor criteria, assuming an acceptable hypoxic/ischemic time (time from withdrawal of care to cross-clamp) of 30 minutes. Results During the study period, there were 894 HBDs, 334 heart transplants and 119 NHBDs. NHBDs were similar to HBDs with respect to gender and ethnicity, but NHBDs were proportionately younger. Of 119 NHBDs, 55 did not meet the age criteria (≤45 years) and 20 were eliminated because of incomplete data. Eighty-two NHBDs were cross-clamped within 30 minutes of care withdrawal. Twenty NHBDs met all cardiac donor criteria, and 14 of these 20 had hypoxic/ischemic times ≤30 minutes. Pro rata estimation for the 20 NHBDs with incomplete data suggested 7 potential additional donors. Conclusions Based on our assumptions, 12% to 18% of NHBDs in the study period (14 to 21 of 119 total) were potential heart donors, representing a 4% to 6% increase over of the number of heart transplants performed during the same time interval.

Arun K. Singhal

Papers

Donation after Cardiac Death in the US: History and Use

Management of the sensitized cardiac recipient: the use of plasmapheresis and intravenous immunoglobulin.

Effect of older donor age on risk for mortality after heart transplantation

Intralobar sequestration in the middle-aged and elderly adult: recognition and radiographic evaluation.

Potential suitability for transplantation of hearts from human non-heart-beating donors: data review from the Gift of Life Donor Program.