ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Although IgG1 and IgG3 have been shown to be the dominant subclasses in the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection, little is known about the distribution of IgG subclasses during the recovery phase of COVID-19. The aim of the study was to analyze the profile of IgG subclasses in COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors. METHODS: A total of 36 convalescent plasma donors were included in the analysis. IgG and IgG subclass levels were measured using a nephelometric assay in plasma samples obtained directly from the plasma container. RESULTS: Although there was no significant difference in the concentration of IgG subclasses between the study and control groups, the contribution of IgG1 to the total IgG pool between the study and control groups was statistically significant (p = 0.0478). In addition, there was a discrepancy between the total IgG and IgG sum values in the study group, exceeding 15 % in 19,4 % of samples (n = 7), while in the control group no samples with a sum/ total IgG difference > 15 % were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The selective affinity of the IgG1 subclass for the polyclonal anti-IgG reagent may interfere with the determination of total IgG and should be considered when interpreting the results of enzyme immunoassays DATA AVAILABILITY: The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
ABSTRACT
The risk of a hemolytic reaction during the transfusion of ABO non-identical PC is determined by the presence of natural anti-A IgM antibodies, the titer of which may increase after infections. The aim of the study was to evaluate the titer of anti-A isohemagglutinins in platelet concentrate (PC) obtained by apheresis from group O donors who experienced SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to compare the titer before and after infection. A retrospective single-center analysis of 21 PC donors with a previous COVID-19 history was performed. The results showed neither a statistically important increase in the anti-A IgM antibody titers nor a significant correlation between the anti-A IgM antibody level and anti-SARS-CoV-2S1 antibody titer in the donors with an asymptomatic or mild COVID-19. Further population-based studies on anti-A titers are necessary for a comprehensive assessment of this phenomenon.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/immunology , Hemagglutinins/blood , Plateletpheresis , SARS-CoV-2 , ABO Blood-Group System/immunology , Adult , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Blood Donors , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Platelet Transfusion/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Transfusion Reaction/blood , Transfusion Reaction/etiology , Transfusion Reaction/immunology , Young AdultABSTRACT
In the field of transfusion medicine, many pathogen reduction techniques (PRTs) are currently available, including those based on photochemical (PI) and photodynamic inactivation (PDI). This is particularly important in the face of emerging viral pathogens that may pose a threat to blood recipients, as in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, PRTs have some limitations, primarily related to their adverse effects on coagulation factors, which should be considered before their intended use. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Wiley Online Library and Science Direct databases was conducted to identify original papers. As a result, ten studies evaluating fresh plasma and frozen-thawed plasma treated with different PI/ PDI methods and evaluating concentrations of coagulation factors and natural anticoagulants both before and after photochemical treatment were included in the review. The use of PI and PDI is associated with a significant decrease in the activity of all analysed coagulation factors, while the recovery of natural anticoagulants remains at a satisfactory level, variable for individual inactivation methods. In addition, the published evidence reviewed above does not unequivocally favour the implementation of PI/PDI either before freezing or after thawing as plasma products obtained with these two approaches seem to satisfy the existing quality criteria. Based on current evidence, if implemented responsibly and in accordance with the current guidelines, both PI and PDI can ensure satisfactory plasma quality and improve its safety.