Apheresis practice patterns in the United States of America: Analysis of a market claims database. Issue 5 (12th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zantek, Nicole D.; Martinez, Ryan J.; Johnson, Andrew D.; Tholkes, Anthony J.; Shah, Surbhi
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical apheresis. Volume 36:Issue 5(2021)
• Page Start: 750
• Page End: 758
• Publication Date: 2021-07-12
• Subjects: database -- International Classification of Diseases, Ninth version -- plasma exchange -- red blood cell exchange; Hemapheresis -- Periodicals; Blood -- Transfusion -- Periodicals; Blood -- Transfusion, Autologous -- Periodicals; Cell separation -- Periodicals; Leukapheresis -- Periodicals; Plasmapheresis -- Periodicals; 615.39
• DOI: 10.1002/jca.21926
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0733-2459

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Indications for apheresis procedures are expanding; however, the evidence for many is low quality. A better understanding of apheresis patterns in the United States is needed to better plan prospective research studies. Methods: Data from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015, were analyzed from the IBM MarketScan Research Databases of de‐identified health insurance claims data of several million enrollees at all levels of care from large employers and health plans across the United States. Apheresis procedures were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth version (ICD‐9) and Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) codes. Results: Combining inpatients and outpatients, 18 706 patients underwent 70 247 procedures. The patients were 52.7% female, 5.1% <18 years, and 55.9% inpatient, while the procedures were 49.5% female, 5.7% <18 years, and 19.8% inpatient. For each apheresis modality, the percent of patients treated and procedures performed, respectively, are plasmapheresis 36.4% and 42.5%, autologous harvest of stem cells 22.8% and 10.7%, plateletpheresis 11.1% and 3.5%, allogeneic harvest of stem cells 8.2% and 2.5%, photopheresis 5.4% and 24.4%, erythrocytapheresis 3.8% and 4.7%, leukopheresis 2.0% and 0.7%, immunoadsorption 1.4% and 0.4%, extracorporeal selective adsorption/filtration and plasma reinfusion 1.0% and 3.6%, and other 21.6% and 6.9%. A wide variety of diagnoses were treated; however, analysis of the diagnoses suggests the procedure codes may not always reflect an apheresis procedure. Conclusion: This study describes the landscape of apheresis in the United States, but may overestimate some procedures based on linked diagnosis codes. Direct measures of apheresis procedures are needed to plan future research studies.