The determinants of donor safety and product quality in optimization of apheresis granulocyte harvest: An experience from a tertiary care oncology centre in India.

Allogeneic granulocyte transfusions play a substantial role in treatment of lifethreatening neutropenia-associated infections in patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Granulocyte harvest by apheresis is considered a safe and effective method to obtain adequate therapeutic granulocyte dosage for clinical effectiveness. This study described the experiences associated with apheresis granulocyte harvest procedures in our tertiary care haemato-oncology centre. We have analysed the incidence of adverse events (AEs) with associated potential risk factors contributing to donor safety and improvement in product quality. Retrospective data of 131 healthy allogeneic donors who underwent granulocyte harvest from May 2016 to July 2020 were analyzed. AEs were observed in overall 29 procedures (22.13%), including 14.50% citrate reactions, 7.6% venous access-related reactions, and 1.52% vasovagal reactions. Older age (p = 0.012) and higher body mass index (p = 0.015) in donors were significant variables found associated with a higher incidence of AEs. There was no significant impact of AEs on granulocyte product yield (p = 0.41) with a median collection yield of 1.73 × 10 10 cells/ unit. In multivariate analysis, post-mobilization parameters like total leukocyte counts (p = 0.036), absolute neutrophil counts (p = 0.042), and platelet counts (p = 0.006) showed a positive correlation with higher product yield. All the donors successfully donated and tolerated granulocyte colony stimulating factor plus dexamethasone mobilization and granulocyte apheresis harvest without any serious AEs. Our study shows that optimal technical and procedural modifications during apheresis granulocyte harvest procedures can overcome the associated potential risks by providing donor safety and improving product quality.

Seroprevalence of human parvovirus B19 in healthy blood donors.

BACKGROUND: Human parvovirus B19 is an emerging transfusion transmitted infection. Although parvovirus B19 infection is connected with severe complications in some recipients, donor screening is not yet mandatory. To reduce the risk of contamination, plasma-pool screening and exclusion of highly viraemic donations are recommended. In this study the prevalence of parvovirus B19 in healthy blood donors was detected by ELISA. METHODS: A total of 1633 samples were screened for IgM and IgG antibodies against parvovirus B19 by ELISA. The initial 540 samples were screened for both IgM and IgG class antibodies and remaining 1093 samples were screened for only IgM class antibodies by ELISA. RESULTS: Net prevalence of IgM antibodies to human parvovirus B19 in our study was 7.53% and prevalence of IgG antibodies was 27.96%. Dual positivity (IgG and IgM) was 2.40%. CONCLUSION: The seroprevalence of human parvovirus B19 among blood donor population in our study is high, and poses an adverse transfusion risk especially in high-risk group of patients who have no detectable antibodies to B19. Studies with large sample size are needed to validate these results.