An international review of the characteristics of viral nucleic acid-amplification testing (NAT) reveals a trend towards the use of smaller pool sizes and individual donation NAT.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nucleic acid-amplification testing (NAT) is used for screening blood donations/donors for blood-borne viruses. We reviewed global viral NAT characteristics and NAT-yield confirmatory testing used by blood operators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: NAT characteristics and NAT-yield confirmatory testing used during 2019 was surveyed internationally by the International Society of Blood Transfusion Working Party Transfusion-Transmitted Infectious Diseases. Reported characteristics are presented herein. RESULTS: NAT was mainly performed under government mandate. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) NAT was performed on all donors and donation types, while selective testing was reported for West Nile virus, hepatitis E virus (HEV), and Zika virus. Individual donation NAT was used for HIV, HCV and HBV by ~50% of responders, while HEV was screened in mini-pools by 83% of responders performing HEV NAT. Confirmatory testing for NAT-yield samples was generally performed by NAT on a sample from the same donation or by NAT and serology on samples from the same donation and a follow-up sample. CONCLUSION: In the last decade, there has been a trend towards use of smaller pool sizes or individual donation NAT. We captured characteristics of NAT internationally in 2019 and provide insights into confirmatory testing approaches used for NAT-yields, potentially benefitting blood operators seeking to implement NAT.

International review of blood donation nucleic acid amplification testing.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT), in blood services context, is used for the detection of viral and parasite nucleic acids to reduce transfusion-transmitted infections. This project reviewed NAT for screening blood donations globally. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey on NAT usage, developed by the International Society of Blood Transfusion Working Party on Transfusion-transmitted Infectious Diseases (ISBT WP-TTID), was distributed through ISBT WP-TTID members. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Forty-three responses were received from 32 countries. Increased adoption of blood donation viral screening by NAT was observed over the past decade. NAT-positive donations were detected for all viruses tested in 2019 (proportion of donations positive by NAT were 0.0099% for human immunodeficiency virus [HIV], 0.0063% for hepatitis C virus [HCV], 0.0247% for hepatitis B virus [HBV], 0.0323% for hepatitis E virus [HEV], 0.0014% for West Nile virus [WNV] and 0.00005% for Zika virus [ZIKV]). Globally, over 3100 NAT-positive donations were identified as NAT yield or solely by NAT in 2019 and over 22,000 since the introduction of NAT, with HBV accounting for over half. NAT-positivity rate was higher in first-time donors for all viruses tested except WNV. During 2019, a small number of participants performed NAT for parasites (Trypanosoma cruzi, Babesia spp., Plasmodium spp.). CONCLUSION: This survey captures current use of blood donation NAT globally. There has been increased NAT usage over the last decade. It is clear that NAT contributes to improving blood transfusion safety globally; however, there is a need to overcome economic barriers for regions/countries not performing NAT.

Ex vivo haemostatic capacity of plasma upon thawing and beyond: a comparison between fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and frozen plasma prepared from whole blood stored at room temperature up to 24 hours postcollection (RTFP24).

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: We compared the ex vivo haemostatic capacity of RTFP24 with FFP upon thawing and >24 h post-thaw. We included thrombin generation (TG) as few studies had compared global haemostatic function, and most did not directly compare RTFP24 with FFP >24 h post-thaw. MATERIALS/METHODS: Twenty units each of RTFP24 and FFP were measured for coagulation factors and thrombin generation upon thawing (D0) and 4 days post-thaw (D4). Labile factors were also measured from D1 to D3. 10 single cryoprecipitate units were each prepared from FFP and RTFP24, and measured for FXIII, FVIII and fibrinogen at D0. RESULTS: At D0, RTFP24 was comparable to FFP except for lower FV, protein S, endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) and higher FXIII. These differences were likely clinically insignificant since 95% and 80% of RTFP24 met our laboratory's reference ranges for FV/protein S and ETP, respectively. There were no differences between RTFP24- and FFP-derived cryoprecipitate. At D4, RTFP24 was comparable to FFP except for lower FV, ETP, and higher FXI and FXIII. More RTFP24 than FFP had ETP lower than our laboratory's reference range (45% vs 15%). Multiple coagulation factors and all TG parameters declined from their respective baselines. The percentage declines were comparable or less in RTFP24, except for protein C, fibrinogen and time to peak. CONCLUSION: RTFP24 and FFP, and their derived cryoprecipitate have comparable haemostatic capacity upon thawing. RTFP24 has poorer TG potential than FFP >24 h post-thaw, not supporting universal extension of RTFP24's shelf life except to facilitate urgent transfusions for massive haemorrhage.