Ziman, Alyssa

Abstract Background Anti‐M antibodies were described as rarely eliciting hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) in pregnancy. More recent literature, primarily from Asia, reports severe HDFN attributed to maternal anti‐M. The objective of this study is to determine if there is a difference in the frequency and/or severity of anti‐M HDFN among subjects who self‐report as Asian compared to non‐Asian. Methods Retrospective data were collected from 18 sites. Fetuses/neonates affected by HDFN were categorized as unaffected, mild, moderate, or severe based on clinical management and outcomes. Results Anti‐M was identified in 557 obstetric patients. Among 332 neonates with complete data for analysis, anti‐M was detected in isolation during the pregnancies of 210 (63.3%) neonates; 198 (94.3%) were unaffected by HDFN. The overall frequency of HDFN was 6.5% (2/31) in Asian patients and 5.6% (10/179) in non‐Asian patients. The frequency of severe HDFN was 6.5% (2/31) among Asian patients and 0.6% (1/179) among non‐Asian patients. Among non‐Asian patients, eight (4.5%) were mild and one (0.6%) was moderate. Of 63 pregnancies with anti‐M and ABO incompatibility, 6 (9.5%) were associated with mild HDFN and 57 (90.5%) were unaffected. Of 49 pregnancies with anti‐M and non‐ABO antibody(s), 6 (12.2%) were associated with mild HDFN and 43 (87.8%) were unaffected. One case (10.0%) of HDFN (mild) occurred in the presence of anti‐M, additional antibody(s), and ABO incompatibility. Conclusion In this study, severe anti‐M HDFN was rare in non‐Asian subjects. There is a signal that Asian patients are at greater risk for severe anti‐M HDFN.

Abstract Background Cryoprecipitated antihemophiliac factor (cryo) is primarily used to replenish fibrinogen in acquired coagulopathy. Little has been reported about its usage patterns within hospitals with respect to patient population, frequency of use, and dosing. Study design and methods Cryo production and usage data were collected over 5 years from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2021, from nationally based blood collection centers in the United States (U.S. n = 2) and Canada ( n = 2) and from eight large academic hospitals, respectively. Usage data for a similar product, purified fibrinogen concentrate were also collected from four hospitals. Results Two U.S. blood collectors reported increases in cryo production normalized to total whole blood collections from 17.4% in 2016 to 22.3% in 2021 and from 16.4% in 2016 to 20.2% in 2021. In contrast, in Canada cryo manufacturing increased slightly in one region (11.3%–12.9%) and decreased (8.0%–2.0%) in the other. Cryo utilization, defined as numbers of patients treated normalized to the inpatient census, and dose administered per patient did not consistently increase and differed significantly between hospitals participating in the study ( p < .0001). Likewise, the departments that most frequently transfused cryo varied between hospitals. Similarly, variations in practice were observed for fibrinogen concentrate usage. Conclusion While much of Canada and Europe have moved towards using fibrinogen concentrate, two large U.S. collectors have increased cryo distribution. The lack of standardization and variability in the clinical practice regarding the use of cryo and fibrinogen concentrate reported by study sites may be attributable to practitioner preference, availability, and/or cost rather than adherence to published evidence or guidelines.

Abstract Background Rho(D) immune globulin (RhIg) is used to reduce RhD alloimmunization in pregnancy. This study describes potential causes for RhD alloimmunization after the development and implementation of RhIg. Study Design and Methods This retrospective descriptive study investigated RhD‐negative patients born in 1965–2005 with anti‐D newly identified during 2018–2022. Transfusion, pregnancy, intravenous drug abuse, and transplantation were considered potential alloimmunization sources. Results There were 1200 study patients (852 females; 348 males) at 30 institutions in 5 countries (USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Brazil). Most patients had a single potential source of alloimmunization identified (857/1200, 71%), most commonly pregnancy among females (537/852, 63%) and transfusion among males (180/348, 52%). When multiple potential sources were included, males were more likely than females to have a history of transfusion (235/348 [68%] vs. 149/852 [17%], p < .0001) and confirmed or suspected intravenous drug abuse (100/348 [29%] vs. 138/852 [16%], p < .0001). Among females with a history of pregnancy, 119/718 (17%) had healthcare access issues, 120/718 (17%) had pregnancy in a country where they may not have received RhIg, and 21/718 (3%) refused RhIg. Among patients with a history of transfusion, males were more likely than females to have received RhD‐positive red blood cells or whole blood (143/235 [61%] vs. 30/149 [20%], p < .0001) and/or platelets (84/235 [36%] vs. 19/149 [13%], p < .0001). Discussion Pregnancy was the most frequently identified potential source of RhD alloimmunization among females. Transfusion was most frequent in males. Intravenous drug abuse as a common potential source among patients with RhD alloimmunization merits further study.

BACKGROUND COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) virus-specific antibody levels that translate into recipient posttransfusion antibody levels sufficient to prevent disease progression are not defined. METHODS This secondary analysis correlated donor and recipient antibody levels to hospitalization risk among unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients within the outpatient, double-blind, randomized clinical trial that compared CCP to control plasma. The majority of COVID-19 CCP arm hospitalizations (15/17, 88%) occurred in this unvaccinated, seronegative subgroup. A functional cutoff to delineate recipient high versus low posttransfusion antibody levels was established by 2 methods: (i) analyzing virus neutralization–equivalent anti–Spike receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G (anti-S-RBD IgG) responses in donors or (ii) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS SARS-CoV-2 anti–S-RBD IgG antibody was volume diluted 21.3-fold into posttransfusion seronegative recipients from matched donor units. Virus-specific antibody delivered was approximately 1.2 mg. The high-antibody recipients transfused early (symptom onset within 5 days) had no hospitalizations. A CCP-recipient analysis for antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations found a statistical significant association between early transfusion and high antibodies versus all other CCP recipients (or control plasma), with antibody cutoffs established by both methods-donor-based virus neutralization cutoffs in posttransfusion recipients (0/85 [0%] versus 15/276 [5.6%]; P = 0.03) or ROC-based cutoff (0/94 [0%] versus 15/267 [5.4%]; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION In unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients, early transfusion of plasma units in the upper 30% of study donors’ antibody levels reduced outpatient hospitalizations. High antibody level plasma units, given early, should be reserved for therapeutic use. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04373460. FUNDING Department of Defense (W911QY2090012); Defense Health Agency; Bloomberg Philanthropies; the State of Maryland; NIH (3R01AI152078-01S1, U24TR001609-S3, 1K23HL151826NIH); the Mental Wellness Foundation; the Moriah Fund; Octapharma; the Healthnetwork Foundation; the Shear Family Foundation; the NorthShore Research Institute; and the Rice Foundation.

AbstractBackgroundCOVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important therapeutic option for outpatients at high risk of hospitalization from SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We assessed the safety of outpatient CCP transfusions administered during clinical trials.Study Design and MethodsWe analyzed data pertaining to transfusion‐related reactions from two randomized controlled trials in the U.S. that evaluated the efficacy of CCP versus control plasma in various ambulatory settings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess whether CCP was associated with transfusion reactions, after adjusting for potential confounders.ResultsThe combined study reported 79/1351 (5.9%) adverse events during the transfusion visit, with the majority 62/1351 (4.6%) characterized by mild, allergic‐type findings of urticaria, and/or pruritus consistent with minor allergic transfusion reactions; the other reported events were attributed to the patients' underlying disease, COVID‐19, or vasovagal in nature. We found no difference in the likelihood of allergic transfusion reactions between those receiving CCP versus control plasma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43–1.31). Risk of urticaria and/or pruritus increased with a pre‐existing diagnosis of asthma (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.16–4.67). We did not observe any CCP‐attributed antibody disease enhancement in participants with COVID‐19 or increased risk of infection. There were no life‐threatening severe transfusion reactions and no patients required hospitalization related to transfusion‐associated complications.DiscussionOutpatient plasma administration was safely performed for nearly 1400 participants. CCP is a safe therapeutic option for outpatients at risk of hospitalization from COVID‐19.

AbstractBackgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated low first‐time donor return rates (DRR) following catastrophic events. Little is known, however, about the influence of demographic factors on the DRR of first‐time donors during the COVID‐19 pandemic, including the unique motivation of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors as compared to non‐CCP donors.Study Design and MethodsThirteen blood collection organizations submitted deidentified data from first‐time CCP and non‐CCP donors returning for regular (non‐CCP) donations during the pandemic. DRR was calculated as frequencies. Demographic factors associated with returning donors: race/ethnicity, gender, and generation (Gen Z: 19–24, Millennial: 25–40, Gen X: 41–56, and Boomer: ≥57 years old), within the CCP and non‐CCP first‐time cohorts were compared using chi‐square test at p < .05 statistical significance.ResultsFrom March 2020 through December 2021, there were a total of 44,274 first‐time CCP and 980,201 first‐time non‐CCP donors. DRR were 14.6% (range 11.9%–43.3%) and 46.6% (range 10.0%–76.9%) for CCP and non‐CCP cohorts, respectively. Age over 40 years (Gen X and Boomers), female gender, and White race were each associated with higher return in both donor cohorts (p < .001). For the non‐CCP return donor cohort, the Millennial and Boomers were comparable.ConclusionThe findings demonstrate differences in returning donor trends between the two donor cohorts. The motivation of a first‐time CCP donor may be different than that of a non‐CCP donor. Further study to improve first‐time donor engagement would be worthwhile to expand the donor base with a focus on blood donor diversity emphasizing engagement of underrepresented minorities and younger donors.

AbstractConvalescent plasma, collected from donors who have recovered from a pathogen of interest, has been used to treat infectious diseases, particularly in times of outbreak, when alternative therapies were unavailable. The COVID‐19 pandemic revived interest in the use of convalescent plasma. Large observational studies and clinical trials that were executed during the pandemic provided insight into how to use convalescent plasma, whereby high levels of antibodies against the pathogen of interest and administration early within the time course of the disease are critical for optimal therapeutic effect. Several studies have shown outpatient administration of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to be both safe and effective, preventing clinical progression in patients when administered within the first week of COVID‐19. The United States Food and Drug Administration expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow for the administration of CCP in an outpatient setting in December 2021, at least for immunocompromised patients or those on immunosuppressive therapy. Outpatient transfusion of CCP and infusion of monoclonal antibody therapies for a highly transmissible infectious disease introduces nuanced challenges related to infection prevention. Drawing on our experiences with the clinical and research use of CCP, we describe the logistical considerations and workflow spanning procurement of qualified products, infrastructure, staffing, transfusion, and associated management of adverse events. The purpose of this description is to facilitate the efforts of others intent on establishing outpatient transfusion programs for CCP and other antibody‐based therapies.

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.

BACKGROUNDABO‐incompatible platelet transfusions are common, and transfusions with ABO‐incompatible plasma are increasing with the use of group A plasma and group O whole blood (WB) in emergencies. Many centers screen blood products for anti‐A and/or anti‐B titers to help prevent hemolysis from ABO‐incompatible transfusions, yet titer methods and definition of high titers are not standardized.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSThis international multicenter study collected data on anti‐A and anti‐B titer practices for plasma, apheresis platelet (AP), and WB units from January 2015 through December 2017 to determine the prevalence of high‐titer units using local definitions.RESULTSA total of 87,701 plasma, AP and WB units were screened for high‐titer anti‐A and/or anti‐B. High‐titer detection rates for group A plasma ranged 0%–13.6%; group A AP 2.7%–9.3%; group O AP 2.3%–65.7%; and group O WB 6.4%–20.7%. At the one center that collected group B AP, the high‐titer rate was 10.9%. High‐titer rates varied from month to month, as well as between years for a given month. There was no clear pattern of when high‐titer units were donated.CONCLUSIONThe prevalence of high‐titer plasma, AP, and WB units varies by titer method and local definition of high titer. Even at the lowest titer threshold of 50, a significant proportion of units had a high‐titer antibody, although the clinical relevance of this finding needs further investigation.