Journal of Clinical Apheresis 25:83–177 (2010) Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice—Evidence-Based Approach from the Apheresis Applications Committee of the American Society for Apheresis Zbigniew M. Szczepiorkowski,1*y Jeffrey L. Winters,2* Nicholas Bandarenko,3* Haewon C. Kim,4* Michael L. Linenberger,5* Marisa B. Marques,6* Ravindra Sarode,7* Joseph Schwartz,8* Robert Weinstein,9* and Beth H. Shaz10* 1Transfusion Medicine Service, Department of Pathology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire 2Division of Transfusion Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 3Transfusion Service, Department of Pathology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 4Apheresis Service, Division of Hematology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 5The Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 6Division of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 7Transfusion Medicine and Coagulation Laboratory, University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 8Transfusion Medicine and Cellular Therapy Section, Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York 9Division of Transfusion Medicine, Department of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts 10Center for Transfusion and Cellular Therapies, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Apheresis Applications Committee is charged with a review and catego- rization of indications for therapeutic apheresis. Beginning with the 2007 ASFA Special Issue (fourth edition), the sub- committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence-based approach in the grading and categorization of indi- cations. This Fifth ASFA Special Issue has further improved the process of using evidence-based medicine in the rec- ommendations 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 modi- fied 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. J. Clin. Apheresis 25:83–177, 2010. VC 2010 American Society for Apheresis Key words: apheresis; plasma exchange; immunoadsorption; leukocytapheresis; photopheresis; categories; indications; evidence based INTRODUCTION Special Issue, we believe that this document will appeal to practitioners of apheresis medicine. This is We present you the American Society for Apheresis the second step in evidence-based ASFA categories, (ASFA) Special Issue 2010 (also known as the Fifth which includes analysis based on the quality of evi- Edition of the ASFA Special Issue) with great pleasure. dence and as well as the strength of recommendation After more than five years of engaging work and derived from this evidence; the first step was publica- the introduction of significant changes to the ASFA tion of the ASFA Special Issue 2007 [1–3]. Disclaimer: This document contains information prepared by the other, arising from the application of the information contained in American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) for the apheresis commu- this document for patient care or any other use. The accuracy of the nity and those who request the use of therapeutic apheresis. information contained herein is subject to changes in circumstances Although due care has been used in the preparation of this docu- after the time of publication. ASFA accepts no responsibility for the ment, ASFA makes no representation or warranty, express or accuracy and reliability of information provided by third parties. implied that it is free from errors or omissions, or that it is exhaus- *All authors contributed equally to this work. tive, and expressly disclaims all warranties, including but not limited yCorrespondence to: Zbigniew M. Szczepiorkowski, MD, PhD; Trans- to, warranties as to the information’s quality or fitness for a particu- fusion Medicine Service, Department of Pathology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock lar purpose. The information contained herein is not intended to sup- Medical Center, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA. plant the clinical judgment of qualified medical professionals. ASFA E-mail: [email protected] and its directors, officers, employees, members, representatives, and Published online 3 June 2010 in Wiley InterScience agents accept no liability for any loss, cost, expense, injury, or dam- (www.interscience.wiley.com). ages, whether direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or DOI: 10.1002/jca.20240 VC 2010 American Society for Apheresis 84 Szczepiorkowski et al. TABLE I. Indications for Therapeutic Apheresis—ASFA 2010 Categoriesa Category Description I Disorders for which apheresis is accepted as first-line therapy, either as a primary standalone treatment or in conjunction with other modes of treatment. [Example: plasma exchange in Guillain-Barre´ syndrome as first-line standalone therapy; plasma exchange in myasthenia gravis as first-line in conjunction with immunosuppression and cholinesterase inhibition]. II Disorders for which apheresis is accepted as second-line therapy, either as a standalone treatment or in conjunction with other modes of treatment. [Example: plasma exchange as standalone secondary treatment for acute disseminated encephalomyelitis after high-dose IV corticosteroid failure; extracorporeal photopheresis added to corticosteroids for unresponsive chronic graft-versus-host disease] III Optimum role of apheresis therapy is not established. Decision making should be individualized. [Example: extracorporeal photopheresis for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis; plasma exchange in patients with sepsis and multiorgan failure]. IV Disorders in which published evidence demonstrates or suggests apheresis to be ineffective or harmful. IRB approval is desirable if apheresis treatment is undertaken in these circumstances. [Example: plasma exchange for active rheumatoid arthritis]. aThe description of the ASFA categories have been amended and simplified in comparison to the Third and Fourth Edition of the Special Issue [1,16]. Category P, which was introduced in the Fourth Edition, has been eliminated. TABLE II. Level of Evidence Used in the ASFA Special Issue 2010a Evidence level Evidence quality Type I Obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial Type II-1 Obtained from a well-designed controlled trials without randomization Type II-2 Obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group Type II-3 Obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments could also be regarded as this type of evidence Type III Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees aAdopted from the criteria used by the University HealthCare Consortium [6]. This evidence-based approach is designed to achieve defined and widely accepted ASFA Categories [2]. In several objectives. First, it provides uniformity to category the ASFA Special Issue 2010, we have added the qual- assignment and disease discussion while minimizing perso- ity of recommendation and modified the categories. nal bias; second, it provides the strength of recommenda- This modified approach incorporates the categorization tion; and last, it provides comprehensive, yet condensed, (Table I); quality of the evidence (Table II); and information which could be shared with patients and clini- strength of the recommendation (Table III). cal services requesting the use of therapeutic apheresis. This article is a compilation of all fact sheets for dis- ASFA Categories ease entities, which were assigned ASFA categories I, II, and III, with one exception of burn shock resuscitation, The definition of the four ASFA categories has been which was assigned category IV. Because none of the updated in the Fifth Special Issue from previous years (Table I). Changes in categorization occurred secondary diseases or data supporting the previously assigned cate- to the addition of the strength of recommendation, which gory IV have changed since the Fourth ASFA Special allowed categorization to be better aligned with the Issue, the reader is referred to the previous article and to strength of the evidence and the quality of the literature. the table summarizing all indications [3]. For example, the subcommittee could determine that an Therapeutic apheresis procedures considered in this indication was Category I, such that apheresis is the publication and included in the fact sheets are therapeutic accepted first-line of therapy, without requiring type I plasma exchange (TPE), erythrocytapheresis/red blood (randomized controlled trials) evidence. Category II now cell (RBC) exchange, thrombocytapheresis, leukocytaphe- designates second-line therapy, and therefore, a patient resis, extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP), immunadsorp- must fail or be unable to undergo the first-line therapy. tion (IA), selective removal methods, adsorptive cytaphe- The definition for Category III has been also significantly