Kamel, Hany

AbstractBackgroundAlthough the safety and therapeutic efficacy of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been extensively evaluated, the safety of CCP donation has not been explored in a multi‐institutional context.Study design and methodsNine blood collection organizations (BCOs) participated in a multi‐institutional donor hemovigilance effort to assess the safety of CCP donation. Donor adverse events (DAEs) were defined according to the Standard for Surveillance of Complications Related to Blood Donation, and severity was assessed using the severity grading tool. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine attributes associated with DAE severity.ResultsThe overall DAE rate was 37.7 per 1000 donations. Repeat apheresis and apheresis‐naïve donors experienced adverse event rates of 19.9 and 49.8 per 1000 donations, respectively. Female donors contributed 51.9% of CCP donations with a DAE rate of 49.4 per 1000 donations. The DAE rate for male donors was 27.4 per 1000 donations. Vasovagal reactions accounted for over half of all reported DAEs (51.1%). After adjustment, volume of CCP donated was associated with vasovagal reaction severity (odds ratio [OR] 6.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5–17.1). Donor age and donation history were also associated with DAE severity. Considerable differences in DAE types and rates were observed across the participating BCOs despite the use of standardized hemovigilance definitions.ConclusionThe safety of CCP donation appears comparable to that of conventional apheresis plasma donation with similar associated risk factors for DAE types and severity.

BACKGROUND Determination of blood donor hemoglobin (Hb) levels is a pre‐requisite to ensure donor safety and blood product quality. We aimed to identify Hb measurement practices across blood donation services and to what extent differences associate with low‐Hb deferral rates. METHODS An online survey was performed among Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) Collaborative members, extended with published data. Multivariable negative‐binomial regression models were built to estimate adjusted associations of minimum donation intervals, Hb cut‐offs (high, ≥13.5 g/dL in men or ≥ 12.5 g/dL in women, vs. lower values), iron monitoring (yes/no), providing or prescribing iron supplementation (yes/no), post‐versus pre‐donation Hb measurement and geographical location (Asian vs. rest), with low‐Hb deferral rates. RESULTS Data were included from 38 blood services. Low‐Hb deferral rates varied from 0.11% to 8.81% among men and 0.84% to 31.85% among women. Services with longer minimum donation intervals had significantly lower deferral rates among both women (rate ratio, RR 0.53, 95%CI 0.33‐0.84) and men (RR 0.53, 95%CI 0.31‐0.90). In women, iron supplementation was associated with lower Hb deferral rates (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.23‐0.94). Finally, being located in Asia was associated with higher low‐Hb deferral rates; RR 9.10 (95%CI 3.89‐21.27) for women and 6.76 (95%CI 2.45‐18.68) for men. CONCLUSION Differences in Hb measurement and eligibility criteria, particularly longer donation intervals and iron supplementation in women, are associated with variations in low‐Hb deferral rates. These insights could help improve both blood donation service efficiency and donor care.

BACKGROUNDSt. Louis encephalitis virus is a mosquito‐borne flavivirus that infrequently causes epidemic central nervous system infections. In the United States, blood donors are not screened for St. Louis encephalitis virus infection, and transmission through blood transfusion has not been reported. During September 2015, St. Louis encephalitis virus infection was confirmed in an Arizona kidney transplant recipient. An investigation was initiated to determine the infection source.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSThe patient was interviewed, and medical records were reviewed. To determine the likelihood of mosquito‐borne infection, mosquito surveillance data collected at patient and blood donor residences in timeframes consistent with their possible exposure periods were reviewed. To investigate other routes of exposure, organ and blood donor and recipient specimens were obtained and tested for evidence of St. Louis encephalitis virus infection.RESULTSThe patient presented with symptoms of central nervous system infection. Recent St. Louis encephalitis virus infection was serologically confirmed. The organ donor and three other organ recipients showed no laboratory or clinical evidence of St. Louis encephalitis virus infection. Among four donors of blood products received by the patient via transfusion, one donor had a serologically confirmed, recent St. Louis encephalitis virus infection. Exposure to an infected mosquito was unlikely based on the patient's minimal outdoor exposure. In addition, no St. Louis encephalitis virus‐infected mosquito pools were identified around the patient's residence.CONCLUSIONThis investigation provides evidence of the first reported possible case of St. Louis encephalitis virus transmission through blood product transfusion. Health care providers and public health professionals should maintain heightened awareness for St. Louis encephalitis virus transmission through blood transfusion in settings where outbreaks are identified.