The global blood donation index: an imperfect measure of transfusion need.

The optimum number of units of blood and the associated number of blood donors required to meet a given population's needs remain undetermined globally. Typically, a whole blood donation rate of ten donations per 1000 population, at a minimum, is necessary to meet a country's blood needs. This rate is attributed to a WHO recommendation that 1% of a given country's population should donate blood to ensure a blood supply that is sufficient to meet clinical needs. This often cited metric was first referenced in a 1971 WHO report, yet neither supporting data or references were provided, suggesting that it was flawed at its founding. Regardless, this metric does not provide an accurate or contemporary determination of blood needs, which has ramifications for health service provision and planning, particularly in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Modelling studies that account for geographical variability in disease burden, health-care infrastructure, and transfusion practices are needed to accurately estimate blood needs. A paucity of data to inform modelling remains a major obstacle in this regard. We discuss the history of the global blood donation index and highlight some factors that should be considered to better understand contemporary blood needs.

Use of low titer O whole blood in infants and young children undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

BACKGROUND: Low titer group O whole blood (LTOWB) is commonly used for severe bleeding in trauma patients. LTOWB may also benefit young children requiring cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) at risk of severe bleeding. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, children <2 years old who underwent cardiac surgery with CPB were included. Comparisons were performed between those receiving component therapy (CT) versus those receiving LTOWB plus CT (LTOWB+CT). Outcomes included drainage tube (DT) output and total transfusion volumes. Optimization-based weighting was used for adjusted analyses between groups. RESULTS: There were 117 patients transfused with only CT and 127 patients transfused with LTOWB+CT. In the LTOWB+CT group, 66 were Group non-O and 61 were Group O. Total transfusion volumes given from the start of the operation until the first 24 h in the cardiac intensive care unit was a median (IQR) 41 (10, 93) mL/kg in the CT group and 48 (28, 77) mL/kg in the LTOWB+CT group, (p = .28). Median (IQR) DT output was 22 (15-32) in CT versus 22 (16-28) in LTOWB+CT groups, (p = .27). There were no differences in death, renal failure and a composite of death and renal failure between the two groups, but there were statistically fewer re-explorations for bleeding in the LTOWB+CT group (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of LTOWB appears to be safe in <2 years old undergoing cardiac surgery and may reduce re-explorations for severe bleeding. Large trials are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of LTOWB in this population with severe bleeding.

How do transfusion services manage patients taking therapies such as anti-CD38 and anti-CD47 known to interfere with red blood cell compatibility testing?

BACKGROUND: Drugs such as daratumumab (Darzalex, anti-CD38) and Hu5F9-G4 (magrolimab, anti-CD47) may interfere with red blood cell compatibility testing as CD38 and CD47 are expressed on red blood cells. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A survey of AABB member transfusion services was undertaken to understand their experiences of managing patients taking therapeutic monoclonal antibodies that are known to interfere with blood grouping and compatibility testing. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to the contact person at US-based AABB member transfusion services. The response rate was 27%. 172 of 240 (72%) indicated they had difficulties in performing compatibility testing in patients taking daratumumab and 66 of 91 (73%) reported difficulties in performing compatibility testing in patients taking magrolimab. Actions taken to provide compatible blood for these patients included referral of all samples to a reference center, blood group pheno/genotyping the patient in advance of starting the drug, treating reagent cells with 0.2 M dithiothreitol and using K-negative red cell units for patients taking daratumumab, and Gamma-clone (Immucor) anti-IgG for indirect antiglobulin testing for patients taking magrolimab. Lack of communication from clinical services about drug treatment was identified as a concern. CONCLUSION: The results of the survey demonstrate that transfusion services are having challenges with the transfusion management of patients taking therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, and further education is needed.

Acute pulmonary injury in hematology patients supported with pathogen-reduced and conventional platelet components.

ABSTRACT: Patients treated with antineoplastic therapy often develop thrombocytopenia requiring platelet transfusion, which has potential to exacerbate pulmonary injury. This study tested the hypothesis that amotosalen-UVA pathogen-reduced platelet components (PRPCs) do not potentiate pulmonary dysfunction compared with conventional platelet components (CPCs). A prospective, multicenter, open-label, sequential cohort study evaluated the incidence of treatment-emergent assisted mechanical ventilation initiated for pulmonary dysfunction (TEAMV-PD). The first cohort received CPC. After the CPC cohort, each site enrolled a second cohort transfused with PRPC. Other outcomes included clinically significant pulmonary adverse events (CSPAE) and the incidence of treatment-emergent acute respiratory distress syndrome (TEARDS) diagnosed by blinded expert adjudication. The incidence of TEAMV-PD in all patients (1068 PRPC and 1223 CPC) was less for PRPC (1.7 %) than CPC (3.1%) with a treatment difference of -1.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.7 to -0.2). In patients requiring ≥2 PCs, the incidence of TEAMV-PD was reduced for PRPC recipients compared with CPC recipients (treatment difference, -2.4%; 95% CI, -4.2 to -0.6). CSPAE increased with increasing PC exposure but were not significantly different between the cohorts. For patients receiving ≥2 platelet transfusions, TEARDS occurred in 1.3% PRPC and 2.6% CPC recipients (P = .086). Bayesian analysis demonstrated PRPC may be superior in reducing TEAMV-PD and TEARDS for platelet transfusion recipients compared with CPC recipients, with 99.2% and 88.8% probability, respectively. In this study, PRPC compared with CPC demonstrated high probability of reduced severe pulmonary injury requiring assisted mechanical ventilation in patients with hematology disorders dependent on platelet transfusion. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02549222.

Results of clinical effectiveness of conventional versus Mirasol-treated Apheresis Platelets in Patients with Hypoproliferative Thrombocytopenia (MiPLATE) trial.

BACKGROUND: The Mirasol® Pathogen Reduction Technology System was developed to reduce transfusion-transmitted diseases in platelet (PLT) products. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: MiPLATE trial was a prospective, multicenter, controlled, randomized, non-inferiority (NI) study of the clinical effectiveness of conventional versus Mirasol-treated Apheresis PLTs in participants with hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia. The novel primary endpoint was days of ≥Grade 2 bleeding with an NI margin of 1.6. RESULTS: After 330 participants were randomized, a planned interim analysis of 297 participants (145 MIRASOL, 152 CONTROL) receiving ≥1 study transfusion found a 2.79-relative rate (RR) in the MIRASOL compared to the CONTROL in number of days with ≥Grade 2 bleeding (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.67-4.67). The proportion of subjects with ≥Grade 2 bleeding was 40.0% (n = 58) in MIRASOL and 30.3% (n = 46) in CONTROL (RR = 1.32, 95% CI 0.97-1.81, p = .08). Corrected count increments were lower (p < .01) and the number of PLT transfusion episodes per participant was higher (RR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.05-1.41) in MIRASOL. There was no difference in the days of PLT support (hazard ratio = 0.86, 95% CI 0.68-1.08) or total number of red blood cell transfusions (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.91-1.37) between MIRASOL versus CONTROL. Transfusion emergent adverse events were reported in 119 MIRASOL participants (84.4%) compared to 133 (82.6%) participants in CONTROL (p = NS). DISCUSSION: This study did not support that MIRASOL was non-inferior compared to conventional platelets using the novel endpoint number of days with ≥Grade 2 bleeding in MIRASOL when compared to CONTROL.

Blood and Its Components.

This JAMA Insights summarizes best clinical practices for use of whole blood, plasma, cryoprecipitate, platelets, and red blood cells in the process of blood transfusion.

Red Blood Cell Transfusion: 2023 AABB International Guidelines.

Importance: Red blood cell transfusion is a common medical intervention with benefits and harms. Objective: To provide recommendations for use of red blood cell transfusion in adults and children. Evidence Review: Standards for trustworthy guidelines were followed, including using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods, managing conflicts of interest, and making values and preferences explicit. Evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials was reviewed. Findings: For adults, 45 randomized controlled trials with 20 599 participants compared restrictive hemoglobin-based transfusion thresholds, typically 7 to 8 g/dL, with liberal transfusion thresholds of 9 to 10 g/dL. For pediatric patients, 7 randomized controlled trials with 2730 participants compared a variety of restrictive and liberal transfusion thresholds. For most patient populations, results provided moderate quality evidence that restrictive transfusion thresholds did not adversely affect patient-important outcomes. Recommendation 1: for hospitalized adult patients who are hemodynamically stable, the international panel recommends a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence). In accordance with the restrictive strategy threshold used in most trials, clinicians may choose a threshold of 7.5 g/dL for patients undergoing cardiac surgery and 8 g/dL for those undergoing orthopedic surgery or those with preexisting cardiovascular disease. Recommendation 2: for hospitalized adult patients with hematologic and oncologic disorders, the panel suggests a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (conditional recommendations, low certainty evidence). Recommendation 3: for critically ill children and those at risk of critical illness who are hemodynamically stable and without a hemoglobinopathy, cyanotic cardiac condition, or severe hypoxemia, the international panel recommends a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence). Recommendation 4: for hemodynamically stable children with congenital heart disease, the international panel suggests a transfusion threshold that is based on the cardiac abnormality and stage of surgical repair: 7 g/dL (biventricular repair), 9 g/dL (single-ventricle palliation), or 7 to 9 g/dL (uncorrected congenital heart disease) (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence). Conclusions and Relevance: It is good practice to consider overall clinical context and alternative therapies to transfusion when making transfusion decisions about an individual patient.

Current advances in 2022: A critical review of selected topics by the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee.

BACKGROUND: The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee (CTMC) composes a summary of new and important advances in transfusion medicine (TM) on an annual basis. Since 2018, this has been assembled into a manuscript and published in Transfusion. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: CTMC members selected original manuscripts relevant to TM that were published electronically and/or in print during calendar year 2022. Papers were selected based on perceived importance and/or originality. References for selected papers were made available to CTMC members to provide feedback. Members were also encouraged to identify papers that may have been omitted initially. They then worked in groups of two to three to write a summary for each new publication within their broader topic. Each topic summary was then reviewed and edited by two separate committee members. The final manuscript was assembled by the first and senior authors. While this review is extensive, it is not a systematic review and some publications considered important by readers may have been excluded. RESULTS: For calendar year 2022, summaries of key publications were assembled for the following broader topics within TM: blood component therapy; infectious diseases, blood donor testing, and collections; patient blood management; immunohematology and genomics; hemostasis; hemoglobinopathies; apheresis and cell therapy; pediatrics; and health care disparities, diversity, equity, and inclusion. DISCUSSION: This Committee Report reviews and summarizes important publications and advances in TM published during calendar year 2022, and maybe a useful educational tool.

Guidance on the Use of Convalescent Plasma to Treat Immunocompromised Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19 in immunocompromised (IC) patients. IC patients have a higher risk of persistent infection, severe disease, and death from COVID-19. Despite the continued clinical use of CCP to treat IC patients, the optimal dose, frequency/schedule, and duration of CCP treatment has yet to be determined, and related best practices guidelines are lacking. A group of individuals with expertise spanning infectious diseases, virology and transfusion medicine was assembled to render an expert opinion statement pertaining to the use of CCP for IC patients. For optimal effect, CCP should be recently and locally collected to match circulating variant. CCP should be considered for the treatment of IC patients with acute and protracted COVID-19; dosage depends on clinical setting (acute vs protracted COVID-19). CCP containing high-titer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies, retains activity against circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, which have otherwise rendered monoclonal antibodies ineffective.

Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB): COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma.

DESCRIPTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP. METHODS: These guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21 916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations. RECOMMENDATION 1 (OUTPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2 (INPATIENT): The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. RECOMMENDATION 3 (INPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4 (INPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 5 (PROPHYLAXIS): The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE STATEMENT: CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.

Neutralizing COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been one of the most common treatments for COVID-19, but most clinical trial data to date have not supported its efficacy. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is rigorously selected COVID-19 convalescent plasma with neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial among adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory symptoms for < 14 days. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive one unit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (n = 487) or placebo (n = 473). The primary outcome was clinical status (disease severity) 14 days following study infusion measured with a seven-category ordinal scale ranging from discharged from the hospital with resumption of normal activities (lowest score) to death (highest score). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable ordinal regression model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) < 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with convalescent plasma than with placebo. In secondary analyses, trial participants were stratified according to the presence of endogenous anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ("serostatus") at randomization. The trial included 13 secondary efficacy outcomes, including 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 974 randomized patients, 960 were included in the primary analysis. Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not differ between the convalescent plasma and placebo groups in the overall population (aOR, 1.04; one-seventh support interval [1/7 SI], 0.82-1.33), in patients without endogenous antibodies (aOR, 1.15; 1/7 SI, 0.74-1.80), or in patients with endogenous antibodies (aOR, 0.96; 1/7 SI, 0.72-1.30). None of the 13 secondary efficacy outcomes were different between groups. At 28 days, 89 of 482 (18.5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 80 of 465 (17.2%) patients in the placebo group had died (aOR, 1.04; 1/7 SI, 0.69-1.58). INTERPRETATION: Among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, including those seronegative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, treatment with convalescent plasma did not improve clinical outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04362176; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Vitamin K antagonist reversal strategies: Systematic review and network meta-analysis from the AABB.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation requires urgent reversal in cases of life-threatening bleeding or invasive procedures. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Network meta-analysis for comparing the safety and efficacy of warfarin reversal strategies including plasma and prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs). RESULTS: Seven studies including 594 subjects using reversal agents plasma, 3-factor-PCC (Uman Complex and Konyne), and 4-factor-PCC (Beriplex/KCentra, Octaplex, and Cofact) met inclusion criteria. Compared with plasma, patients receiving Cofact probably have a higher rate of international normalized ratio (INR) correction (risk difference [RD] 499 more per 1000 patients, 95% confidence interval [CI], 176-761, low certainty[LC]); higher reversal of bleeding (323 more per 1000 patients, 11-344 more, LC); and fewer transfusion requirements (0.96 fewer units, 1.65-0.27 fewer, LC). Patients receiving Beriplex/KCentra probably have a higher rate of INR correction (476 more per 1000 patients, 332-609 more, LC); higher reversal of bleeding (127 more per 1000 patients, 43 fewer to 236 more); and similar transfusion requirements (0.01 fewer units, 0.31 fewer to 0.28 more, high/moderate certainty). Patients receiving Octaplex probably have a higher rate of INR correction (RD 579 more per 1000 patients, 189-825 more, LC). CONCLUSIONS: PCCs probably provide an advantage in INR reversal compared to plasma. There was no added risk of adverse events with PCCs.

Current advances in transfusion medicine 2021: A critical review of selected topics by the AABB Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee.

BACKGROUND: Each year the AABB Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee (CTMC) procures a synopsis highlighting new, important, and clinically relevant studies in the field of transfusion medicine (TM). This has been made available as a publication in Transfusion since 2018. METHODS: CTMC members reviewed and identified original manuscripts covering TM-related topics published electronically (ahead-of-print) or in print from December 2020 to December 2021. Selection of publications was discussed at committee meetings and chosen based on perceived relevance and originality. Next, committee members worked in pairs to create a synopsis of each topic, which was then reviewed by additional committee members. The first and senior authors assembled the final manuscript. Although this synopsis is extensive, it is not exhaustive, and some articles may have been excluded or missed. RESULTS: The following topics are included: blood products; convalescent plasma; donor collections and testing; hemoglobinopathies; immunohematology and genomics; hemostasis; patient blood management; pediatrics; therapeutic apheresis; and cell therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This synopsis highlights and summarizes recent key developments in TM and may be useful for educational purposes.

Comparative risk of pulmonary adverse events with transfusion of pathogen reduced and conventional platelet components.

BACKGROUND: Platelet transfusion carries risk of transfusion-transmitted infection (TTI). Pathogen reduction of platelet components (PRPC) is designed to reduce TTI. Pulmonary adverse events (AEs), including transfusion-related acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) occur with platelet transfusion. STUDY DESIGN: An open label, sequential cohort study of transfusion-dependent hematology-oncology patients was conducted to compare pulmonary safety of PRPC with conventional PC (CPC). The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment-emergent assisted mechanical ventilation (TEAMV) by non-inferiority. Secondary outcomes included: time to TEAMV, ARDS, pulmonary AEs, peri-transfusion AE, hemorrhagic AE, transfusion reactions (TRs), PC and red blood cell (RBC) use, and mortality. RESULTS: By modified intent-to-treat (mITT), 1068 patients received 5277 PRPC and 1223 patients received 5487 CPC. The cohorts had similar demographics, primary disease, and primary therapy. PRPC were non-inferior to CPC for TEAMV (treatment difference -1.7%, 95% CI: (-3.3% to -0.1%); odds ratio = 0.53, 95% CI: (0.30, 0.94). The cumulative incidence of TEAMV for PRPC (2.9%) was significantly less than CPC (4.6%, p = .039). The incidence of ARDS was less, but not significantly different, for PRPC (1.0% vs. 1.8%, p = .151; odds ratio = 0.57, 95% CI: (0.27, 1.18). AE, pulmonary AE, and mortality were not different between cohorts. TRs were similar for PRPC and CPC (8.3% vs. 9.7%, p = .256); and allergic TR were significantly less with PRPC (p = .006). PC and RBC use were not increased with PRPC. DISCUSSION: PRPC demonstrated reduced TEAMV with no excess treatment-related pulmonary morbidity.

Safety and tolerability of solvent/detergent-treated plasma for pediatric patients requiring therapeutic plasma exchange: An open-label, multicenter, postmarketing study.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the real-world safety and tolerability of solvent/detergent-treated (S/D) plasma for pediatric patients requiring therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: LAS-213 was a multicenter, open-label, interventional, phase 4 study. Patients (≥2 to ≤20 years) receiving TPE therapy were eligible. A total plasma volume of 40-60 ml/kg was recommended, with an infusion rate not exceeding 0.020-0.025 citrate/kg body weight/min (<1 ml/kg body weight/min). The primary endpoint was assessment of safety, monitoring the following: serious adverse events (SAEs), adverse drug reactions (ADRs), thrombotic events (TEs), thromboembolic events (TEEs), and specific laboratory tests. RESULTS: In total, 41 children (2 to <12 years [n = 15]; 12 to <17 years [n = 13]; ≥17 years [n = 13]) underwent 102 TPEs with a total of 135,137 ml of S/D plasma exchanged. Each patient group received between 1 and 6 TPEs (mean: 2.5 TPEs). Actual dose administered per TPE was 4-72 ml/kg (mean: 28.6 ml/kg), with a mean total volume of 1324.9 ml (range: 113-4000 ml). Overall safety was excellent for 96/102 (94.0%) TPEs. Six TPEs had a "moderate" safety profile for four patients experiencing eight ADRs. Of these, seven were mild in intensity and one (pyrexia) was moderate, all resolving by study end. Mild citrate toxicity (n = 2) was the most common ADR. One SAE was reported but was unrelated to the study drug. No TEs, TEEs, or changes in laboratory safety parameters were reported. CONCLUSION: S/D plasma was well tolerated and demonstrated favorable safety, supporting the use of S/D plasma for TPE in pediatrics.