Blood conservation strategies at United States hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from a multi-institutional analysis - International Society of Blood Transfusion survey.

BACKGROUND: Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the transfusion medicine community has experienced unprecedented blood supply shortages since March 2020. As such, numerous changes to everyday practice have occurred with a specific emphasis on blood conservation. We sought to determine the strategies used to mitigate blood shortages and promote blood conservation during the pandemic. METHODS: An anonymous, 37-question survey was developed using Research Electronic Data Capture and distributed via e-mail to transfusion medicine specialists across the US obtained via publicly available databases. RESULTS: Amongst surveyed [41.1% response rate (51/124 institutions)], 98.0% experienced a product shortage, with the greatest number reporting red blood cell (RBC) shortages (92.0%). This led to 35.3% of institutions altering the composition and/or number of blood product suppliers, including a 100% increase in the number of institutions acquiring blood from organizations that connect hospital transfusion services with blood collection centers (e.g., Blood Buy) compared to before March 2020. Prospective triaging of blood products was the most common blood conservation strategy (68.1%), though 35.4% altered their RBC exchange or transfusion program for patients receiving chronic RBC transfusion/exchange. As a result of these changes, 78.6% of institutions reported that these changes resulted in a reduction in blood product usage, and 38.1% reported a decrease in product wastage. CONCLUSIONS: Most hospitals experienced the effects of the supply shortage, and many of them implemented blood conserving measures. Conservation strategies were associated with decreased blood utilization and waste, and future studies could evaluate whether these changes persist.

ABO blood group and SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in a convalescent donor population.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: ABO 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 METHODS: Among 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. RESULTS: Of 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). CONCLUSION: Eligible 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.

A rapid, point-of-care red blood cell agglutination assay detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality. There is an urgent need for serological tests to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, which could be used to assess past infection, evaluate responses to vaccines in development, and determine individuals who may be protected from future infection. Current serological tests developed for SARS-CoV-2 rely on traditional technologies such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and lateral flow assays, which have not scaled to meet the demand of hundreds of millions of antibody tests so far. Herein, we present an alternative method of antibody testing that depends on one protein reagent being added to patient serum/plasma or whole blood with direct, visual readout. Two novel fusion proteins, RBD-2E8 and B6-CH1-RBD, were designed to bind red blood cells (RBCs) via a single-chain variable fragment (scFv), thereby displaying the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on the surface of RBCs. Mixing mammalian-derived RBD-2E8 and B6-CH1-RBD with convalescent COVID-19 patient serum and RBCs led to visible hemagglutination, indicating the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 RBD. B6-CH1-RBD made in bacteria was not as effective in inducing agglutination, indicating better recognition of RBD epitopes from mammalian cells. Given that our hemagglutination test uses methods routinely used in hospital clinical labs across the world for blood typing, we anticipate the test can be rapidly deployed at minimal cost. We anticipate our hemagglutination assay may find extensive use in low-resource settings for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Operational Recommendations for Scarce Resource Allocation in a Public Health Crisis.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic may require rationing of various medical resources if demand exceeds supply. Theoretical frameworks for resource allocation have provided much needed ethical guidance, but hospitals still need to address objective practicalities and legal vetting to operationalize scarce resource allocation schemata. To develop operational scarce resource allocation processes for public health catastrophes, including the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, five health systems in Maryland formed a consortium-with diverse expertise and representation-representing more than half of all hospitals in the state. Our efforts built on a prior statewide community engagement process that determined the values and moral reference points of citizens and health-care professionals regarding the allocation of ventilators during a public health catastrophe. Through a partnership of health systems, we developed a scarce resource allocation framework informed by citizens' values and by general expert consensus. Allocation schema for mechanical ventilators, ICU resources, blood components, novel therapeutics, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and renal replacement therapies were developed. Creating operational algorithms for each resource posed unique challenges; each resource's varying nature and underlying data on benefit prevented any single algorithm from being universally applicable. The development of scarce resource allocation processes must be iterative, legally vetted, and tested. We offer our processes to assist other regions that may be faced with the challenge of rationing health-care resources during public health catastrophes.