Demographics of first-time donors returning for donation during the pandemic: COVID-19 convalescent plasma versus standard blood product donors.

BACKGROUND: Previous 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 METHODS: Thirteen 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. RESULTS: From 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.

Hospital red blood cell and platelet supply and utilization from March to December of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: The BEST collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: At the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, widespread blood shortages were anticipated. We sought to determine how hospital blood supply and blood utilization were affected by the first wave of COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Weekly red blood cell (RBC) and platelet (PLT) inventory, transfusion, and outdate data were collected from 13 institutions in the United States, Brazil, Canada, and Denmark from March 1st to December 31st of 2020 and 2019. Data from the sites were aligned based on each site's local first peak of COVID-19 cases, and data from 2020 (pandemic year) were compared with data from the corresponding period in 2019 (pre-pandemic baseline). RESULTS: RBC inventories were 3% lower in 2020 than in 2019 (680 vs. 704, p < .001) and 5% fewer RBCs were transfused per week compared to 2019 (477 vs. 501, p < .001). However, during the first COVID-19 peak, RBC and PLT inventories were higher than normal, as reflected by deviation from par, days on hand, and percent outdated. At this time, 16% fewer inpatient beds were occupied, and 43% fewer surgeries were performed compared to 2019 (p < .001). In contrast to 2019 when there was no correlation, there was, in 2020, significant negative correlations between RBC and PLT days on hand and both percentage occupancy of inpatient beds and percentage of surgeries performed. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, RBC and PLT inventories remained adequate. During the first wave of cases, significant decreases in patient care activities were associated with excess RBC and PLT supplies and increased product outdating.

How do I implement an outpatient program for the administration of convalescent plasma for COVID-19?

Convalescent 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.

Antibody profiles in COVID-19 convalescent plasma prepared with amotosalen/UVA pathogen reduction treatment.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP), from donors recovered from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, is one of the limited therapeutic options currently available for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19. There is growing evidence that CCP may reduce viral loads and disease severity; and reduce mortality. However, concerns about the risk of transfusion-transmitted infections (TTI) and other complications associated with transfusion of plasma, remain. Amotosalen/UVA pathogen reduction treatment (A/UVA-PRT) of plasma offers a mitigation of TTI risk, and when combined with pooling has the potential to increase the diversity of the polyclonal SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study assessed the impact of A/UVA-PRT on SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 42 CCP using multiple complimentary assays including antigen binding, neutralizing, and epitope microarrays. Other mediators of CCP efficacy were also assessed. RESULTS: A/UVA-PRT did not negatively impact antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and other viral epitopes, had no impact on neutralizing activity or other potential mediators of CCP efficacy. Finally, immune cross-reactivity with other coronavirus antigens was observed raising the potential for neutralizing activity against other emergent coronaviruses. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study support the selection of effective CCP combined with the use of A/UVA-PRT in the production of CCP for patients with COVID-19.

Current state and positive impact of hospital-based blood donor centers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought tremendous challenges to the United States blood supply. Decreased collections have caused blood product shortages. The number of hospital-based donor centers (HBDCs) has decreased in the past decades, but they provide important support to their hospital systems. MATERIALS/METHODS: We identified 79 active HBDCs through an information request to the FDA. These centers were invited to participate in a survey about their activities, blood product collections, and perceived value. RESULTS: Thirty-six centers responded (46% response rate). The centers represented a wide range of states and geographic settings. Whole blood collection was most common, but some respondents also prepared specialized products such as COVID-19 convalescent plasma and pathogen-reduced platelets. Positive impacts of HBDCs included inventory availability, cost-effectiveness/savings, community outreach, supporting special patient populations, and collecting specialty products. All respondents anticipate at least stable operations, if not growth, in the future. CONCLUSION: HBDCs continue to be valuable assets in addressing emerging patient transfusion needs. Their unique offerings are tailored to the populations their hospitals support, and demonstrate the value in having the collection infrastructure in place to rapidly respond to critical shortages. This survey provides benchmark data about a broad group of HBDCs including products prepared, inventory self-sufficiency levels, and reasons for positive impact.

The safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma donation: A multi-institutional donor hemovigilance study.

BACKGROUND: Although 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 METHODS: Nine 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSION: The safety of CCP donation appears comparable to that of conventional apheresis plasma donation with similar associated risk factors for DAE types and severity.