Use of a dual lumen port for automated red cell exchange in adults with sickle cell disease

Red cell exchange (RCE) is a common procedure in adults with sickle cell disease (SCD). Implantable dual lumen Vortex (DLV) ports can be used for RCE in patients with poor peripheral venous access. We performed a retrospective cohort study of RCE procedures performed in adults with SCD. The main objective of the study was to compare the inlet speed, duration of procedures and rate of complications performed through DLV ports to those performed through temporary central venous and peripheral catheters. Twenty‐nine adults with SCD underwent a total of 318 RCE procedures. Twenty adults had DLV ports placed and 218 procedures were performed using DLV ports. Mean length of follow‐up after DLV port placement was 397 ± 263 days. Six DLV ports were removed due to infection and 1 for malfunction after a mean of 171 ± 120 days. Compared to temporary central venous and peripheral catheters, DLV port procedures had a greater rate of procedural complications, a longer duration, and a lower inlet speed (all P < 0.01). When accounting for the maximum allowable inlet speed to avoid citrate toxicity, 40% of DLV port procedures were greater than 10% below maximum speed, compared to 7 and 14% of procedures performed through temporary central venous and peripheral catheters (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, DLV ports can be used for RCE in adults with SCD, albeit with more procedural complications and longer duration. The smaller internal diameter and longer catheter of DLV ports compared to temporary central venous catheters likely accounts for the differences noted. J. Clin. Apheresis 30:353–358, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Population Genetics Identifies Challenges in Analyzing Rare Variants

Geneticists have, for years, understood the nature of genome‐wide association studies using common genomic variants. Recently, however, focus has shifted to the analysis of rare variants. This presents potential problems for researchers, as rare variants do not always behave in the same way common variants do, sometimes rendering decades of solid intuition moot. In this paper, we present examples of the differences between common and rare variants. We show why one must be significantly more careful about the origin of rare variants, and how failing to do so can lead to highly inflated type I error. We then explain how to best avoid such concerns with careful understanding and study design. Additionally, we demonstrate that a seemingly low error rate in next‐generation sequencing can dramatically impact the false‐positive rate for rare variants. This is due to the fact that rare variants are, by definition, seen infrequently, making it hard to distinguish between errors and real variants. Compounding this problem is the fact that the proportion of errors is likely to get worse, not better, with increasing sample size. One cannot simply scale their way up in order to solve this problem. Understanding these potential pitfalls is a key step in successfully identifying true associations between rare variants and diseases.     

Nanomedicines: From Bench to Bedside and Beyond

Advancing nanomedicines from concept to clinic requires integration of new science with traditional pharmaceutical development. The medical and commercial success of nanomedicines is greatly facilitated when those charged with developing nanomedicines are cognizant of the unique opportunities and technical challenges that these products present. These individuals must also be knowledgeable about the processes of clinical and product development, including regulatory considerations, to maximize the odds for successful product registration. This article outlines these topics with a goal to accelerate the combination of academic innovation with collaborative industrial scientists who understand pharmaceutical development and regulatory approval requirements—only together can they realize the full potential of nanomedicines for patients.