25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for sickle cell disease: transfusion support

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Red cell transfusions remain a mainstay of therapy for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), but pose significant clinical challenges. Guidance for specific indications and administration of transfusion, as well as screening, prevention, and management of alloimmunization, delayed hemolytic transfusion reactions (DHTRs), and iron overload may improve outcomes.

          Objective:

          Our objective was to develop evidence-based guidelines to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about transfusion support for SCD and the management of transfusion-related complications.

          Methods:

          The American Society of Hematology formed a multidisciplinary panel that was balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest and that included a patient representative. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes. The Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline development process. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to form recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

          Results:

          The panel developed 10 recommendations focused on red cell antigen typing and matching, indications, and mode of administration (simple vs red cell exchange), as well as screening, prevention, and management of alloimmunization, DHTRs, and iron overload.

          Conclusions:

          The majority of panel recommendations were conditional due to the paucity of direct, high-certainty evidence for outcomes of interest. Research priorities were identified, including prospective studies to understand the role of serologic vs genotypic red cell matching, the mechanism of HTRs resulting from specific alloantigens to inform therapy, the role and timing of regular transfusions during pregnancy for women, and the optimal treatment of transfusional iron overload in SCD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references123

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group

          Background A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Methods Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches. Results There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised. Conclusions All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise.

            Although several tools to evaluate the credibility of health care guidelines exist, guidance on practical steps for developing guidelines is lacking. We systematically compiled a comprehensive checklist of items linked to relevant resources and tools that guideline developers could consider, without the expectation that every guideline would address each item. We searched data sources, including manuals of international guideline developers, literature on guidelines for guidelines (with a focus on methodology reports from international and national agencies, and professional societies) and recent articles providing systematic guidance. We reviewed these sources in duplicate, extracted items for the checklist using a sensitive approach and developed overarching topics relevant to guidelines. In an iterative process, we reviewed items for duplication and omissions and involved experts in guideline development for revisions and suggestions for items to be added. We developed a checklist with 18 topics and 146 items and a webpage to facilitate its use by guideline developers. The topics and included items cover all stages of the guideline enterprise, from the planning and formulation of guidelines, to their implementation and evaluation. The final checklist includes links to training materials as well as resources with suggested methodology for applying the items. The checklist will serve as a resource for guideline developers. Consideration of items on the checklist will support the development, implementation and evaluation of guidelines. We will use crowdsourcing to revise the checklist and keep it up to date.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Causes and outcomes of the acute chest syndrome in sickle cell disease. National Acute Chest Syndrome Study Group.

              The acute chest syndrome is the leading cause of death among patients with sickle cell disease. Since its cause is largely unknown, therapy is supportive. Pilot studies with improved diagnostic techniques suggest that infection and fat embolism are underdiagnosed in patients with the syndrome. In a 30-center study, we analyzed 671 episodes of the acute chest syndrome in 538 patients with sickle cell disease to determine the cause, outcome, and response to therapy. We evaluated a treatment protocol that included matched transfusions, bronchodilators, and bronchoscopy. Samples of blood and respiratory tract secretions were sent to central laboratories for antibody testing, culture, DNA testing, and histopathological analyses. Nearly half the patients were initially admitted for another reason, mainly pain. When the acute chest syndrome was diagnosed, patients had hypoxia, decreasing hemoglobin values, and progressive multilobar pneumonia. The mean length of hospitalization was 10.5 days. Thirteen percent of patients required mechanical ventilation, and 3 percent died. Patients who were 20 or more years of age had a more severe course than those who were younger. Neurologic events occurred in 11 percent of patients, among whom 46 percent had respiratory failure. Treatment with phenotypically matched transfusions improved oxygenation, with a 1 percent rate of alloimmunization. One fifth of the patients who were treated with bronchodilators had clinical improvement. Eighty-one percent of patients who required mechanical ventilation recovered. A specific cause of the acute chest syndrome was identified in 38 percent of all episodes and 70 percent of episodes with complete data. Among the specific causes were pulmonary fat embolism and 27 different infectious pathogens. Eighteen patients died, and the most common causes of death were pulmonary emboli and infectious bronchopneumonia. Infection was a contributing factor in 56 percent of the deaths. Among patients with sickle cell disease, the acute chest syndrome is commonly precipitated by fat embolism and infection, especially community-acquired pneumonia. Among older patients and those with neurologic symptoms, the syndrome often progresses to respiratory failure. Treatment with transfusions and bronchodilators improves oxygenation, and with aggressive treatment, most patients who have respiratory failure recover.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Blood Advances
                American Society of Hematology
                2473-9529
                2473-9537
                January 28 2020
                January 28 2020
                January 27 2020
                : 4
                : 2
                : 327-355
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Hematology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA;
                [2 ]Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN;
                [3 ]Center for Transfusion and Cellular Therapy, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA;
                [4 ]Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI;
                [5 ]Department of Laboratory Medicine and
                [6 ]Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT;
                [7 ]Department of Haematological Medicine, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom;
                [8 ]Department of Haematology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom;
                [9 ]Nicole Wertheim College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL;
                [10 ]INSERM-U955, Laboratory of Excellence, French Blood Establishment, Créteil, France;
                [11 ]New York Blood Center, New York, NY;
                [12 ]Sickle Cell Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD;
                [13 ]Laboratory of Immunohematology and Genomics, New York Blood Center, New York, NY;
                [14 ]Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR; and
                [15 ]Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
                Article
                10.1182/bloodadvances.2019001143
                6988392
                31985807
                f8dd591b-efc9-4a2f-ae24-d7e5a7cbfee6
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article