Karafin, Matthew S.

Abstract Background Red cell alloimmunization complicates sickle cell disease (SCD) management despite current widespread prophylactic Rh/K matching in the United States (US). Regional antibody patterns remain poorly characterized. Study Design and Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 2965 SCD patients from 9 US sites (2010–2022). All hospitals prophylactically match for Rh and K antigens. Each site collected demographics, antigen status, antibody histories, and antibody screen results from their laboratory information system. Results Overall antibody prevalence was 29.7% with dramatic institutional variation (17.9%–56.0%). Alloantibody prevalence was 27.5%. Most autoantibody‐positive patients (74.23%) also had alloantibodies, identifying a high‐risk population. A third of patients with positive antibody histories had negative screens. Pediatric patients showed markedly different antibody profiles than adults. Hospitals’ antibody patterns clustered by patient age rather than geography. Rh and K antibodies were the most common and also most likely to co‐occur, followed by S, Fya, and Jkb antibodies. Antibodies against Jsa (1.82%), V (1.75%), and Kpa (1.69%) were more prevalent than anti‐Jka (1.28%). Despite regional antibody variation, antigen frequencies remained overall consistent. In antigen–antibody pairwise comparisons, 3.15% were antigen‐negative and antibody‐positive reflecting alloimmunization; 0.47% were both antibody‐ and antigen‐positive, suggesting partial/variant antigens. Discussion Substantial institutional variation in antibody prevalence suggests need for site‐specific approaches to testing and prophylactic matching. High co‐occurrence of auto‐ and alloantibodies, antibody immunogenicity patterns, and antigen–antibody discordances support the need for further research and consideration of refined testing and/or matching strategies beyond the current Rh and K standard.

Abstract Introduction: The Duffy null variant (genotype or phenotype) is associated with lower circulating absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) without increased risk for infection. It is found in ~66% of people identifying as Black or African American vs <1% of people of Asian or European ancestry. Many ANC reference intervals (RI) are not representative of the Duffy null population. There are no adult Duffy null WBC RI and no pediatric Duffy null ANC or WBC RI. Thus, we aimed to assess Duffy null ANC and WBC distributions as well as develop WBC and ANC RI for adults and pediatrics. Methods: Twenty-three sites across the United States collected samples with all sites excluding participants with conditions or medications that could impact ANC or WBC. Only Duffy null participants were included. Sex, race, ethnicity, age, sample collection type, practice setting, Duffy testing method, ANC, and WBC were recorded. The non-parametric method for determining lower limit of normal (LLN), upper limit of normal (ULN), and 90% confidence intervals (CI) around the limits was performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Specific ULN and LLN are not reported as these are preliminary data. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare sex and prior data; differences by age groups were assessed with Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: 316 participants 18+ years-old (y/o) were assessed of whom 62.3% (n=197) are female, 97.5% (n=308) identified as Black or African American, and 94.9% (n=300) identified as non-Hispanic. Median age was 47 y/o (IQR: 32-60.5). Median ANC was 2600/uL (IQR: 1860-3530; range: 400-7400); 28.6% (n=90) of participants had ANC <2000/uL, 13.6% (n=43) had ANC <1500/uL, and 2.5% (n=8) had <1000/uL. The 90% CI around the LLN was 810-1070/uL and 5570-7130/uL around the ULN. Consistent with prior data, there was a difference in median ANC by sex (male: 2400/uL; female: 2710/uL; p=0.02). There was no significant difference between this ANC data and previously published Duffy null ANC data (p=0.28). Median WBC was 5.4x109/L (IQR: 4.4-6.5; range: 2.10-11.64) with 4.1% (n=13) of participants with WBC <3.0x109/L. The 90% CI around the LLN is 3.68-4.30x109/L and 11.02-12.97x109/L around the ULN. 515 participants between 0-17 y/o were assessed with 51.8% (n=267) females, 94.8% (n=488) identified as Black or African American, and 94.0% (n=484) identified as non-Hispanic. Among pediatric participants, 56.8% (n=291) had ANC <2000/uL, 38.7% (n=198) had ANC <1500/uL, and 14.4% (n=74) had ANC <1000/uL. For those <1 y/o (n=29), median ANC was 950/uL (IQR: 840-1360; range: 111-3910). There are currently too few samples to predict ULN and LLN. Median WBC was 8.85x109/L (IQR: 7.03-10.16; range: 4.17-13.53). For those 1-5 y/o (n=143), median ANC was 1735/uL (IQR: 1100-2550; range: 207-5810) with a 90% CI around the LLN of 207-820/uL and 4020-5810/uL around the ULN. Median WBC was 6.72x109/L (IQR: 5.64-8.25; range: 3.68-12.97). For those 6-11 y/o (n=128), median ANC was 1590/uL (IQR: 1090-2470; range: 420-5490) with a 90% CI around the LLN of 420-910/uL and 4340-5490/uL around the ULN. Median WBC was 5.42x109/L (IQR: 4.45-6.70; range: 2.80-10.50). For those 12-17 y/o (n=215), median ANC was 2190/uL (IQR: 1460-2930; range: 204-5850) with a 90% CI around the LLN of 540-930/uL and 4350-5510/uL around the ULN. Median WBC was 5.06x109/L (IQR: 4.26-6.20; range of 2.04-9.91). There is a significant difference in ANC by age category (p<0.0001). Conclusion: This is the first report of healthy pediatric Duffy null ANC and WBC data and the first large-scale verification of adult Duffy null ANC and WBC data. Final RI are expected in September 2025. Among adults with the Duffy null phenotype, ANC LLN are likely between 810-1070/uL. Pediatric ANC LLN are likely as low as 207-820/uL (1-5 y/o), 420-910/uL (6-11 y/o), and 540-930/uL (12-17 y/o). These findings redefine “normal” as a significant proportion of healthy participants have ANC or WBC below current RI or below thresholds typically defined as disease. Limitations include heterogeneous sample populations and collection methods. Future analyses will assess differences between collection sites or methods. Ultimately, this work lays the foundation for a more scientifically sound and equitable approach to medical care by ensuring that RI accurately reflects health for the entire community. Healthcare systems are strongly encouraged to adopt Duffy null-specific ANC and WBC RI.

Context.— Modern RHD genotyping can be used to determine when patients with serologic weak D phenotypes have RHD gene variants at risk for anti-D alloimmunization. However, serologic testing, RhD interpretations, and laboratory management of these patients are quite variable. Objective.— To obtain interlaboratory comparisons of serologic testing, RhD interpretations, Rh immune globulin (RhIG) management, fetomaternal hemorrhage testing, and RHD genotyping for weak D-reactive specimens. Design.— We devised an educational exercise in which 81 transfusion services supporting obstetrics performed tube-method RhD typing on 2 unknown red blood cell challenge specimens identified as (1) maternal and (2) newborn. Both specimens were from the same weak D-reactive donor. The exercise revealed how participants responded to these different clinical situations. Results.— Of reporting laboratories, 14% (11 of 80) obtained discrepant immediate-spin reactions on the 2 specimens. Nine different reporting terms were used to interpret weak D-reactive maternal RhD types to obstetricians. In laboratories obtaining negative maternal immediate-spin reactions, 28% (16 of 57) performed unwarranted antiglobulin testing, sometimes leading to recommendations against giving RhIG. To screen for excess fetomaternal hemorrhage after a weak D-reactive newborn, 47% (34 of 73) of reporting laboratories would have employed a contraindicated fetal rosette test, risking false-negative results and inadequate RhIG coverage. Sixty percent (44 of 73) of laboratories would obtain RHD genotyping in some or all cases. Conclusions.— For obstetric and neonatal patients with serologic weak D phenotypes, we found several critical problems in transfusion service laboratory practices. We provide recommendations for appropriate testing, consistent immunohematologic terminology, and RHD genotype–guided management of Rh immune globulin therapy and RBC transfusions.

AbstractBackgroundThe SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic disrupted hospital operations, affected the blood supply, and challenged the health care system to develop new therapeutic options, including convalescent plasma (CCP). The aim of this study is to describe and analyze blood supply fluctuations and the use of convalescent plasma in 2020.MethodsAABB distributed a weekly and biweekly questionnaire through email to hospital‐based members (HBM).ResultsThe survey was sent to 887 HBM with 479 unique respondents, most of the hospitals served pediatric and adult patients, and all states of the country participated, except Idaho and Vermont. Fifty four percent of HBM reported increased wastage in the early phase of the pandemic (May), which decreased to 4% by the end of June and throughout the rest of the year. The majority of HBM reported receiving alerts from their blood suppliers reporting blood shortages throughout the year. During March and April, only 12% of HBM were performing elective surgical procedures. The top reasons to delay procedures were: bed availability (28%); COVID‐19 caseload (23%; and blood availability (19%). By mid‐April, 42% HBM had transfused CCP and reported >24 h delay in getting the units; the vast majority obtained CCP using the Expanded Access Protocol, and later, the Emergency Use Authorization. HBM consistently prioritized the most severe patients to receive CCP, but the proportion of severely ill recipients fell from 52% to 37% between May and October, with an increase from 5% to 21% of HBM providing CCP transfusion early in the course of the disease.DiscussionBlood utilization and availability fluctuated during the pandemic. The fluctuations appeared to be related to the number of COVID‐19 in the community. The use and regulatory landscape of CCP rapidly evolved over the first 8 months of the pandemic.

BACKGROUNDBlood transfusion is one of the most common medical procedures during hospitalization in the United States. To understand the benefits of transfusion while mitigating potential risks, a multicenter database containing detailed information on transfusion incidence and recipient outcomes would facilitate research.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSThe Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study‐III (REDS‐III) program has developed a comprehensive transfusion recipient database utilizing data from hospital electronic health records at 12 participating hospitals in four geographic regions. Inpatient and outpatient data on transfusion recipients from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014 included patient age, sex, ethnicity, primary diagnosis, type of blood product provided, issue location, pretransfusion and post‐transfusion hemoglobin (Hgb), and hospital outcomes. Transfusion incidence per encounter was calculated by blood product and various patient characteristics.RESULTSDuring the 2‐year study period, 80,362 (12.5%) inpatient encounters involved transfusion. Among inpatients, the most commonly transfused blood products were red blood cells (RBCs; 10.9% of encounters), followed by platelets (3.2%) and plasma (2.9%). Among patients who received transfusions, the median number of RBC units was one, the pretransfusion Hgb level was 7.6 g/dL, and the Hgb increment per unit was 1.4 g/dL. Encounter mortality increased with patient age, the number of units transfused, and the use of platelet or plasma products. The most commonly reported transfusion reaction was febrile nonhemolytic.CONCLUSIONThe database contains comprehensive data regarding transfusion use and patient outcomes. The current report describes an evaluation of the first 2 years of a planned, 4‐year, linked blood donor‐component‐recipient database, which represents a critical new resource for transfusion medicine researchers.