Goel, Ruchika

Abstract Background and Objectives Artificial intelligence (AI) has been gaining increasing interest in healthcare. During the 2024 International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) Congress, the Clinical Transfusion Working Party (CTWP) conducted a session to explore the exciting intersection of AI in transfusion medicine (TM) practice, education and research. We report here the potential applications and the session outcome. Materials and Methods A pre‐workshop survey explored the participants' demographics and areas of use of AI and whether they have had any AI‐specific training or education. The workshop included presentations on the regulatory aspects of AI use and its application in TM practice, education and research. These were followed by round‐table discussions to explore participants' experience and concerns. Results The workshop had 72 attendees, with 38% falling in the 36–45‐year age group. A total of 70% indicated the use of AI, but only 12% reported having specific training or education. Participants expressed interest in different potential applications but also shared concerns on over‐reliance, potential loss of skills, the accuracy of provided information and content plagiarism. Conclusion The findings of the workshop highlight the need for training, educational resources, standards and regulatory frameworks to guide the use of AI tools in the field of TM.

AbstractBackgroundHemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) is caused by maternal alloantibody‐mediated destruction of fetal/neonatal red blood cells (RBCs). While the pathophysiology has been well‐characterized, the clinical and laboratory monitoring practices are inconsistent.MethodsWe surveyed 103 US institutions to characterize laboratory testing practices for individuals with fetuses at risk of HDFN. Questions included antibody testing and titration methodologies, the use of critical titers, paternal and cell‐free fetal DNA testing, and result reporting and documentation practices.ResultsThe response rate was 44% (45/103). Most respondents (96%, 43/45) assess maternal antibody titers, primarily using conventional tube‐based methods only (79%, 34/43). Among respondents, 51% (23/45) rescreen all individuals for antibodies in the third trimester, and 60% (27/45) perform paternal RBC antigen testing. A minority (27%, 12/45) utilize cell‐free fetal DNA (cffDNA) testing to predict fetal antigen status. Maternal antibody titers are performed even when the fetus is not considered to be at risk of HDFN based on cffDNA or paternal RBC antigen testing at 23% (10/43) of sites that assess titers.DiscussionThere is heterogeneity across US institutions regarding the testing, monitoring, and reporting practices for pregnant individuals with fetuses at risk of HDFN, including the use of antibody titers in screening and monitoring programs, the use of paternal RBC antigen testing and cffDNA, and documentation of fetal antigen results. Standardization of laboratory testing protocols and closer collaboration between the blood bank and transfusion medicine service and the obstetric/maternal‐fetal medicine service are needed.

SummaryThe thrombotic risk with haemoglobin C trait (HbAC) or haemoglobin C disease (HbCC) is unclear. However, individuals with HbCC have demonstrated chronic haemolysis, higher blood viscosity and altered rheology when compared to individuals with wild‐type haemoglobin (HbAA). These physiological alterations may theoretically translate to increased risk of thrombosis; therefore, a systematic literature review was performed to investigate the possible association between HbAC and/or HbCC and thrombosis. Twenty‐two studies met inclusion criteria representing 782 individuals with HbAC (n = 694) or HbCC (n = 88). Fifteen studies described the presence/absence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with HbAC (n = 685) or HbCC (n = 79), while seven studies described patients with HbAC (n = 9) or HbCC (n = 9) and arterial thrombosis. Most (n = 20) studies were case reports or case series; however, two studies suggested a potential increased VTE risk with HbAC compared to HbAA in (i) all patients (OR 2.2, 95% CI: 0.9–5.5) and in (ii) pregnant individuals (RR 3.7, 95% CI 0.9–16). This review is the largest assessment of patients with HbC trait or disease and thrombosis to date; despite its limitations, the findings suggest HbC may be a predisposing risk factor to thrombosis. Prospective cohort studies are warranted to definitively elucidate the risk of thrombosis in this population.

AbstractBackgroundState of the Science (SoS) meetings are used to define and highlight important unanswered scientific questions. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), Department of Health and Human Services held a virtual SoS in transfusion medicine (TM) symposium.Study Design and MethodsIn advance of the symposium, six multidisciplinary working groups (WG) convened to define research priorities in the areas of: blood donors and the supply, optimizing transfusion outcomes for recipients, emerging infections, mechanistic aspects of components and transfusion, new computational methods in transfusion science, and impact of health disparities on donors and recipients. The overall objective was to identify key basic, translational, and clinical research questions that will help to increase and diversify the volunteer donor pool, ensure safe and effective transfusion strategies for recipients, and identify which blood products from which donors best meet the clinical needs of specific recipient populations.ResultsOn August 29–30, 2022, over 400 researchers, clinicians, industry experts, government officials, community members, and patient advocates discussed the research priorities presented by each WG. Dialogue focused on the five highest priority research areas identified by each WG and included the rationale, proposed methodological approaches, feasibility, and barriers for success.DiscussionThis report summarizes the key ideas and research priorities identified during the NHLBI/OASH SoS in TM symposium. The report highlights major gaps in our current knowledge and provides a road map for TM research.

Background and ObjectivesABO blood group may affect risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and/or severity of COVID‐19. We sought to determine whether IgG, IgA and neutralizing antibody (nAb) to SARS‐CoV‐2 vary by ABO blood group.Materials and MethodsAmong eligible convalescent plasma donors, ABO blood group was determined via agglutination of reagent A1 and B cells, IgA and IgG were quantified using the Euroimmun anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 ELISA, and nAb titres were quantified using a microneutralization assay. Differences in titre distribution were examined by ABO blood group using non‐parametric Kruskal–Wallis tests. Adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) of high nAb titre (≥1:160) were estimated by blood group using multivariable modified Poisson regression models that adjusted for age, sex, hospitalization status and time since SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis.ResultsOf the 202 potential donors, 65 (32%) were blood group A, 39 (19%) were group B, 13 (6%) were group AB, and 85 (42%) were group O. Distribution of nAb titres significantly differed by ABO blood group, whereas there were no significant differences in anti‐spike IgA or anti‐spike IgG titres by ABO blood group. There were significantly more individuals with high nAb titre (≥1:160) among those with blood group B, compared with group O (aPR = 1·9 [95%CI = 1·1–3·3], P = 0·029). Fewer individuals had a high nAb titre among those with blood group A, compared with group B (aPR = 0·6 [95%CI = 0·4‐1·0], P = 0·053).ConclusionEligible CCP donors with blood group B may have relatively higher neutralizing antibody titres. Additional studies evaluating ABO blood groups and antibody titres that incorporate COVID‐19 severity are needed.