Safety and efficacy of single‐needle leukocyte apheresis for treatment of ulcerative colitis

• Published in: Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis Vol. 24; no. 5; pp. 503 - 510
• Main Authors: Shindo, Yoichiro, Mitsuyama, Keiichi, Yamasaki, Hiroshi, Imai, Tetsuro, Yoshioka, Shinichiro, Kuwaki, Kotaro, Yamauchi, Ryosuke, Yoshimura, Tetsuhiro, Araki, Toshihiro, Morita, Masaru, Tsuruta, Kozo, Yamasaki, Sayo, Fukami, Kei, Torimura, Takuji
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Kyoto, Japan John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 01.10.2020
• Subjects: leukocyte apheresis; single needle; ulcerative colitis
• ISSN: 1744-9979; 1744-9987
• DOI: 10.1111/1744-9987.13539

Leukocyte apheresis (LCAP) is a safe and effective treatment for active ulcerative colitis (UC) in Japan. Nevertheless, a limitation of LCAP is its requirement for two puncture sites (double‐needle [DN] apheresis), sometimes leading to problems with needle puncture. Single‐needle (SN) apheresis is useful in hemodialysis and reduces needle puncture pain. If SN apheresis were found to be useful in LCAP for UC, it may reduce patient burden. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of SN apheresis with that of DN apheresis. Twenty‐four patients with active UC were retrospectively enrolled. They underwent either SN apheresis (n = 12) or conventional double‐needle (DN) apheresis (n = 12) at the Kurume University Hospital from February 2014 to March 2018. At each session, we recorded access problems defined by the time required to initiate apheresis and the frequency of puncture‐related problems, as well as blood circuit clotting, defined as clotting necessitating interruption of apheresis and changing of the circuit. Efficacy was assessed using partial Mayo scores. The number of apheresis sessions was comparable between SN and DN apheresis (9.0 ± 2.0 times vs 9.6 ± 1.4 times, mean ± SEM). SN significantly reduced the time required to start apheresis (10.0 ± 5.4 minutes vs 19.4 ± 11.9 minutes, P < .05) as well as needle puncture troubles (0.9% vs 11.5%, P < .05). SN had comparable frequency of blood clotting episodes (5.6% vs 8.7%). SN apheresis had similar clinical efficacy (P < .001 in SN and P < .01 in DN). The improvement and remission rates were comparable between groups. SN apheresis may be safe and effective and may reduce patient burden during UC treatment. Nevertheless, further comparative studies are needed.