Neighborhood ethnic density and disparities in proximal blood donation opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Despite being the largest racial/ethnic minority group in the United States, Hispanic/Latinos (H/L) are significantly underrepresented among blood donors. A lack of proximal blood donation opportunities may be one factor contributing to these disparities. However, few studies have investigated this possibility. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Proprietary data on mobile blood collections in Maricopa County, Arizona, were gathered for the period of January 01, 2022 to April 30, 2022 and paired with census tract information using ArcGIS. Maricopa County encompasses the city of Phoenix with a total population of approximately 4.5 million people, including 1.5 million H/L residents. Blood drive count was regressed on H/L ethnic density and total population, and model estimates were exponentiated to obtain odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: During the specified period, approximately 27,000 red blood cell units were collected through mobile drives. Consistent with expectations, when controlling for total neighborhood population, each 10% increase in H/L ethnic density lowered the odds of having a blood drive in the corresponding neighborhood by 12% (OR = 0.88, 95% CI (0.83, 0.92), p < .001). DISCUSSION: These findings provide initial evidence of fewer proximal donation opportunities in areas with greater H/L population density which may contribute to H/L underrepresentation in blood donation and the need for more inclusive collection efforts. Improved access to blood collection is modifiable and could help to increase the overall blood supply, enhance the ability to successfully match specific blood antigen needs of an increasingly diverse population, and bring about a more resilient blood system.

Blood donor return behavior in South Africa and the United States before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Studies preceding the COVID-19 pandemic found that slower time-to-return was associated with first-time, deferred, and mobile drive blood donors. How donor return dynamics changed during the COVID-19 pandemic is not well understood. METHODS: We analyzed visits by whole blood donors from 2017 to 2022 in South Africa (SA) and the United States (US) stratified by mobile and fixed environment, first-time and repeat donor status, and pre-COVID19 (before March 2020) and intra-COVID19. We used Kaplan-Meier curves to characterize time-to-return, cumulative incidence functions to analyze switching between donation environments, and Cox proportional hazards models to analyze factors influencing time-to-return. RESULTS: Overall time-to-return was shorter in SA. Pre-COVID19, the proportion of donors returning within a year of becoming eligible was lower for deferred donors in both countries regardless of donation environment and deferral type. Intra-COVID19, the gap between deferred and non-deferred donors widened in the US but narrowed in SA, where efforts to schedule return visits from deferred donors were intensified, particularly for non-hemoglobin-related deferrals. Intra-COVID19, the proportion of donors returning within a year in SA was higher for deferred first-time donors (>81%) than for successful first-time donors (80% at fixed sites; 69% at mobile drives). CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic complicated efforts to recruit new donors and schedule returning visits after completed donations. Concerted efforts to improve time-to-return for deferred donors helped mitigate donation loss in SA during the public health emergency.

Comparison of allocation strategies of convalescent plasma to reduce excess infections and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in a US-like population.

BACKGROUND: While the use of convalescent plasma (CP) in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has been inconsistent, CP has the potential to reduce excess morbidity and mortality in future pandemics. Given constraints on CP supply, decisions surrounding the allocation of CP must be made. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a discrete-time stochastic compartmental model, we simulated implementation of four potential allocation strategies: administering CP to individuals in early hospitalization with COVID-19; administering CP to individuals in outpatient settings; administering CP to hospitalized individuals and administering any remaining CP to outpatient individuals and administering CP in both settings while prioritizing outpatient individuals. We examined the final size of SARS-CoV-2 infections, peak and cumulative hospitalizations, and cumulative deaths under each of the allocation scenarios over a 180-day period. We compared the cost per weighted health benefit under each strategy. RESULTS: Prioritizing administration to patients in early hospitalization, with remaining plasma administered in outpatient settings, resulted in the highest reduction in mortality, averting on average 15% more COVID-19 deaths than administering to hospitalized individuals alone (95% CI [11%-18%]). Prioritizing administration to outpatients, with remaining plasma administered to hospitalized individuals, had the highest percentage of hospitalizations averted (22% [21%-23%] higher than administering to hospitalized individuals alone). DISCUSSION: Convalescent plasma allocation strategy should be determined by the relative priority of averting deaths, infections, or hospitalizations. Under conditions considered, mixed allocation strategies (allocating CP to both outpatient and hospitalized individuals) resulted in a larger percentage of infections and deaths averted than administering CP in a single setting.

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.

Acquired platelet storage container leaks and contamination with environmental bacteria: A preventable cause of bacterial sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Apheresis platelets (AP) may be contaminated by environmental bacteria via container defects acquired during processing, transport, storage, or transfusion, as highlighted by a recent series of septic reactions related to Acinetobacter spp. and other bacterial strains. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The frequency and nature of acquired container defect reports to one manufacturer were evaluated from January 2019 to July 2020. The published incidence of contamination and sepsis due to environmental bacteria with culture screened AP in the United States was reviewed for the period of 2010-2019. RESULTS: Review of a manufacturers' records showed 23 US reports of leaks involving 24 containers attributed to postmanufacturing damage, at a rate of 44 per million distributed storage containers. Analysis of returned containers showed evidence of scratches, impressions, and/or piercings. Literature review of US hemovigilance data revealed that environmental bacteria comprised 7% of confirmed positive primary bacterial culture screens, were responsible for 14%-16% of reported septic, and 8 of 28 (29%) fatal reactions with bacterial-culture screened AP. Sepsis cases have been reported with culture screened, point-of-issue (POI) tested, or pathogen-reduced AP. DISCUSSION: Environmental contamination of AP is rare but can cause sepsis. Container damage provides a pathway for contamination after culture screening, POI bacteria testing, or pathogen reduction. Blood collectors and transfusion services should have procedures to ensure proper inspection, handling, storage, and transport of AP to avoid damage and should enhance efforts to detect defects prior to release and to eliminate bacteria from all contacting surfaces to minimize the risk of contamination.

International Society of Blood Transfusion survey of experiences of blood banks and transfusion services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted blood systems worldwide. Challenges included maintaining blood supplies and initiating the collection and use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). Sharing information on the challenges can help improve blood collection and utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey questionnaire was distributed to International Society of Blood Transfusion members in 95 countries. We recorded respondents' demographic information, impacts on the blood supply, CCP collection and use, transfusion demands and operational challenges. RESULTS: Eighty-two responses from 42 countries, including 24 low- and middle-income countries, were analysed. Participants worked in national (26.8%) and regional (26.8%) blood establishments and hospital-based (42.7%) institutions. CCP collection and transfusion were reported by 63% and 36.6% of respondents, respectively. Decreases in blood donations occurred in 70.6% of collecting facilities. Despite safety measures and recruitment strategies, donor fear and refusal of institutions to host blood drives were major contributing factors. Almost half of respondents working at transfusion medicine services were from large hospitals with over 10,000 red cell transfusions per year, and 76.8% of those hospitals experienced blood shortages. Practices varied in accepting donors for blood or CCP donations after a history of COVID-19 infection, CCP transfusion, or vaccination. Operational challenges included loss of staff, increased workloads and delays in reagent supplies. Almost half of the institutions modified their disaster plans during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The challenges faced by blood systems during the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the need for guidance, harmonization, and strengthening of the preparedness and the capacity of blood systems against future infectious threats.

Lessons learned from the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 and specific considerations for immunocompromised patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CovCP) infusions have been widely used for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The aims of this narrative review were to analyze the safety and efficacy of CovCP infusions in the overall population and in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 and to identify the lessons learned concerning the use of convalescent plasma (CP) to fill treatment gaps for emerging viruses. Systematic searches (PubMed, Scopus, and COVID-19 Research) were conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles and pre-prints published between March 1, 2020 and May 1, 2021 on the use of CovCP for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. From 261 retrieved articles, 37 articles reporting robust controlled studies in the overall population of patients with COVID-19 and 9 articles in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 were selected. While CovCP infusions are well tolerated in both populations, they do not seem to improve clinical outcomes in critically-ill patients with COVID-19 and no conclusion could be drawn concerning their potential benefits in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19. To be better prepared for future epidemics/pandemics and to evaluate potential benefits of CP treatment, only CP units with high neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) titers should be infused in patients with low NAb titers, patient eligibility criteria should be based on the disease pathophysiology, and measured clinical outcomes and methods should be comparable across studies. Even if CovCP infusions did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, NAb-containing CP infusions remain a safe, widely available and potentially beneficial treatment option for future epidemics/pandemics.

Access to and safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the United States Expanded Access Program: A national registry study.

BACKGROUND: The United States (US) Expanded Access Program (EAP) to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma was initiated in response to the rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19. While randomized clinical trials were in various stages of development and enrollment, there was an urgent need for widespread access to potential therapeutic agents. The objective of this study is to report on the demographic, geographical, and chronological characteristics of patients in the EAP, and key safety metrics following transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Mayo Clinic served as the central institutional review board for all participating facilities, and any US physician could participate as a local physician-principal investigator. Eligible patients were hospitalized, were aged 18 years or older, and had-or were at risk of progression to-severe or life-threatening COVID-19; eligible patients were enrolled through the EAP central website. Blood collection facilities rapidly implemented programs to collect convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Demographic and clinical characteristics of all enrolled patients in the EAP were summarized. Temporal patterns in access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma were investigated by comparing daily and weekly changes in EAP enrollment in response to changes in infection rate at the state level. Geographical analyses on access to convalescent plasma included assessing EAP enrollment in all national hospital referral regions, as well as assessing enrollment in metropolitan areas and less populated areas that did not have access to COVID-19 clinical trials. From April 3 to August 23, 2020, 105,717 hospitalized patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19 were enrolled in the EAP. The majority of patients were 60 years of age or older (57.8%), were male (58.4%), and had overweight or obesity (83.8%). There was substantial inclusion of minorities and underserved populations: 46.4% of patients were of a race other than white, and 37.2% of patients were of Hispanic ethnicity. Chronologically and geographically, increases in the number of both enrollments and transfusions in the EAP closely followed confirmed infections across all 50 states. Nearly all national hospital referral regions enrolled and transfused patients in the EAP, including both in metropolitan and in less populated areas. The incidence of serious adverse events was objectively low (<1%), and the overall crude 30-day mortality rate was 25.2% (95% CI, 25.0% to 25.5%). This registry study was limited by the observational and pragmatic study design that did not include a control or comparator group; thus, the data should not be used to infer definitive treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the EAP provided widespread access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma in all 50 states, including for underserved racial and ethnic minority populations. The study design of the EAP may serve as a model for future efforts when broad access to a treatment is needed in response to an emerging infectious disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT#: NCT04338360.

Pandemic blood donor demographics - Do changes impact blood safety?

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 safety measures and possibly SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing may alter blood donor demography, which has the potential to alter blood safety. We characterized pre-pandemic and pandemic rates of donor infectious disease marker (IDM) reactivity which reflect the residual risk of transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs) undetectable by current testing. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis of allogeneic blood donor presentations and successful donations in a large national US blood collector identifies changes in self-reported behavioral risk factors and IDM reactivity. Data on allogeneic blood donor presentations and successful donations from March 1 through August 31, 2020 and the same period in 2019 were retrieved from the blood center's computer system. Donor demographics and deferrals for reported behavioral risk factors and confirmed-positive IDMs were compared in pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. RESULTS: With increasing mobile blood drive cancellations, pandemic donors were more likely than 2019 donors to be female, over age 30, non-Hispanic Whites, and have a post-secondary degree. First-time donations (at highest risk for confirmed-positive IDMs) did not substantially increase. Pandemic donors reported fewer behavioral risks and IDMs declined among these donors. Mid-pandemic introduction of screening for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies did not affect IDM rates. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike disasters, which tend to bring out more first-time donors with increased IDM reactivity and TTI residual risk, COVID-19 donors had lower IDM rates which were not affected by SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Already-low TTI residual risk is likely to have declined as a result.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody persistence in COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors: Dependency on assay format and applicability to serosurveillance.

BACKGROUND: Antibody response duration following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection tends to be variable and depends on severity of disease and method of detection. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: COVID-19 convalescent plasma from 18 donors was collected longitudinally for a maximum of 63-129 days following resolution of symptoms. All the samples were initially screened by the Ortho total Ig test to confirm positivity and subsequently tested with seven additional direct sandwich or indirect binding assays (Ortho, Roche, Abbott, Broad Institute) directed against a variety of antigen targets (S1, receptor binding domain, and nucleocapsid [NC]), along with two neutralization assays (Broad Institute live virus PRNT and Vitalant Research Institute [VRI] Pseudovirus reporter viral particle neutralization [RVPN]). RESULTS: The direct detection assays (Ortho total Ig total and Roche total Ig) showed increasing levels of antibodies over the time period, in contrast to the indirect IgG assays that showed a decline. Neutralization assays also demonstrated declining responses; the VRI RVPN pseudovirus had a greater rate of decline than the Broad PRNT live virus assay. DISCUSSION: These data show that in addition to variable individual responses and associations with disease severity, the detection assay chosen contributes to the heterogeneous results in antibody stability over time. Depending on the scope of the research, one assay may be preferable over another. For serosurveillance studies, direct, double Ag-sandwich assays appear to be the best choice due to their stability; in particular, algorithms that include both S1- and NC-based assays can help reduce the rate of false-positivity and discriminate between natural infection and vaccine-derived seroreactivity.

Selecting COVID-19 convalescent plasma for neutralizing antibody potency using a high-capacity SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is hypothesized to be associated with the concentration of neutralizing antibodies (nAb) to SARS-CoV-2. High capacity serologic assays detecting binding antibodies (bAb) have been developed; nAb assays are not adaptable to high-throughput testing. We sought to determine the effectiveness of using surrogate bAb signal-to-cutoff ratios (S/Co) in predicting nAb titers using a pseudovirus reporter viral particle neutralization (RVPN) assay. METHODS: CCP donor serum collected by three US blood collectors was tested with a bAb assay (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total, CoV2T) and a nAb RVPN assay. Prediction effectiveness of various CoV2T S/Co criteria was evaluated for RVPN nAb NT50 titers using receiver operating characteristics. RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty-three CCPs were tested with median CoV2T S/Co and NT50 of 71.2 of 527.5. Proportions of donors with NT50 over target nAb titers were 86% ≥1:80, 76% ≥1:160, and 62% ≥1:320. Increasing CoV2T S/Co criterion reduced the sensitivity to predict NT50 titers, while specificity to identify those below increased. As target NT50 titers increase, the CoV2T assay becomes less accurate as a predictor with a decline in positive predictive value and rise in negative predictive value. CONCLUSION: Selection of a clinically effective nAb titer will impact availability of CCP. Product release with CoV2T assay S/Co criterion must balance the risk of releasing products below target nAb titers with the cost of false negatives. A two-step testing scheme may be optimal, with nAb testing on CoV2T samples with S/Cos below criterion.

An international comparison of HIV prevalence and incidence in blood donors and general population: a BEST Collaborative study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Efficiency in mitigating HIV transmission risk by transfusion may vary internationally. We compared HIV prevalence and incidence in blood donors across different jurisdictions in relation to those rates in the general population and differences in deferral practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 2007 to 2016 were collected in Australia, Brazil (São Paulo), Canada, England, France, Italy, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain (Basque Country), USA (Vitalant) and Wales. For each country/region, the number of HIV antibody-positive donations and nucleic acid testing (NAT)-only-positive donations was broken down according to first-time or repeat donor status, along with the relevant denominators. RESULTS: There is a modest correlation between HIV prevalence among first-time donors and HIV prevalence in the general population. However, rates of HIV-positive donations in repeat donors, a proxy for incidence, do not correlate with incidence rates in the general population. Rates in donors from Italy and Basque Country, where deferral criteria for men having sex with men are less stringent, are higher compared with most other jurisdictions. Rates of NAT-only-positive donations are extremely low and do not differ significantly after adjustment for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: Donor HIV rates are only weakly associated with those observed in the general population. Countries with less stringent deferral criteria have higher HIV rates in their donor population, but the rates remain very low.

Estimated US Infection- and Vaccine-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence Based on Blood Donations, July 2020-May 2021.

Importance: People who have been infected with or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 have reduced risk of subsequent infection, but the proportion of people in the US with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from infection or vaccination is uncertain. Objective: To estimate trends in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence related to infection and vaccination in the US population. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a repeated cross-sectional study conducted each month during July 2020 through May 2021, 17 blood collection organizations with blood donations from all 50 US states; Washington, DC; and Puerto Rico were organized into 66 study-specific regions, representing a catchment of 74% of the US population. For each study region, specimens from a median of approximately 2000 blood donors were selected and tested each month; a total of 1 594 363 specimens were initially selected and tested. The final date of blood donation collection was May 31, 2021. Exposure: Calendar time. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of persons with detectable SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid antibodies. Seroprevalence was weighted for demographic differences between the blood donor sample and general population. Infection-induced seroprevalence was defined as the prevalence of the population with both spike and nucleocapsid antibodies. Combined infection- and vaccination-induced seroprevalence was defined as the prevalence of the population with spike antibodies. The seroprevalence estimates were compared with cumulative COVID-19 case report incidence rates. Results: Among 1 443 519 specimens included, 733 052 (50.8%) were from women, 174 842 (12.1%) were from persons aged 16 to 29 years, 292 258 (20.2%) were from persons aged 65 years and older, 36 654 (2.5%) were from non-Hispanic Black persons, and 88 773 (6.1%) were from Hispanic persons. The overall infection-induced SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimate increased from 3.5% (95% CI, 3.2%-3.8%) in July 2020 to 20.2% (95% CI, 19.9%-20.6%) in May 2021; the combined infection- and vaccination-induced seroprevalence estimate in May 2021 was 83.3% (95% CI, 82.9%-83.7%). By May 2021, 2.1 SARS-CoV-2 infections (95% CI, 2.0-2.1) per reported COVID-19 case were estimated to have occurred. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on a sample of blood donations in the US from July 2020 through May 2021, vaccine- and infection-induced SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence increased over time and varied by age, race and ethnicity, and geographic region. Despite weighting to adjust for demographic differences, these findings from a national sample of blood donors may not be representative of the entire US population.

Variations in hemoglobin measurement and eligibility criteria across blood donation services are associated with differing low-hemoglobin deferral rates: a BEST Collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: Determination of blood donor hemoglobin (Hb) levels is a pre-requisite to ensure donor safety and blood product quality. We aimed to identify Hb measurement practices across blood donation services and to what extent differences associate with low-Hb deferral rates. METHODS: An online survey was performed among Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) Collaborative members, extended with published data. Multivariable negative-binomial regression models were built to estimate adjusted associations of minimum donation intervals, Hb cut-offs (high, ≥13.5 g/dL in men or ≥ 12.5 g/dL in women, vs. lower values), iron monitoring (yes/no), providing or prescribing iron supplementation (yes/no), post-versus pre-donation Hb measurement and geographical location (Asian vs. rest), with low-Hb deferral rates. RESULTS: Data were included from 38 blood services. Low-Hb deferral rates varied from 0.11% to 8.81% among men and 0.84% to 31.85% among women. Services with longer minimum donation intervals had significantly lower deferral rates among both women (rate ratio, RR 0.53, 95%CI 0.33-0.84) and men (RR 0.53, 95%CI 0.31-0.90). In women, iron supplementation was associated with lower Hb deferral rates (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.23-0.94). Finally, being located in Asia was associated with higher low-Hb deferral rates; RR 9.10 (95%CI 3.89-21.27) for women and 6.76 (95%CI 2.45-18.68) for men. CONCLUSION: Differences in Hb measurement and eligibility criteria, particularly longer donation intervals and iron supplementation in women, are associated with variations in low-Hb deferral rates. These insights could help improve both blood donation service efficiency and donor care.

Donor iron depletion: beneficial or burdensome?

Most purported benefits of blood donation have not been proven. While studies suggest individuals with type II diabetes have transiently improved postdonation glycemic control, the mechanism is unknown. Blood donors with nonanemic or mildly anemic iron deficiency can develop pica and undergo unnecessary diagnostic procedures. Lower infant birth weight has been documented in female blood donors. In other healthy populations, reversible fatigue and exercise capacity impairment occur with mild iron deficiency. The effects of donor iron depletion on cognition and neurocognitive outcomes after pregnancy continue to be studied. Blood collectors are beginning to implement enhanced educational and interventional measures to prevent iron depletion in at-risk donors.

Safety of blood donation by individuals over age 70 and their contribution to the blood supply in five developed countries: a BEST Collaborative group study.

BACKGROUND: Some countries impose an upper age limit on whole blood and double RBC donation while others do not. We evaluated the safety of blood donation in older individuals (≥71 years), and their contribution to the blood supply of five countries. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Twelve blood center members of the Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) Collaborative from four countries with no upper age limit for whole blood and double RBC donation (Canada, New Zealand, England, and the United States) or an upper age limit of 80 (Australia) provided 2016 data on donors and donations, deferral rates, and vasovagal reactions by donor age and sex. Donors under age 24 were included in the number of total donors and donations, but not in deferral and reaction rate comparisons. RESULTS: Older donors accounted for 1.0% (New Zealand) to 4.3% (United States) of donors, and 1.5% (New Zealand) to 5.6% (United States) of donations; most were between ages 71 and 76. The deferral rate was higher in older compared to 24- to 70-year-old males, but very similar between older and younger females. In contrast, vasovagal reaction rates were either lower (male donors) or similar (female donor for reactions with loss of consciousness) in older compared to 24- to 70-year-old donors. CONCLUSIONS: Exclusion solely based on older age appears to be unwarranted based on safety concerns such as donor reactions. Healthy older individuals can continue to safely donate and make a significant contribution to the blood supply past arbitrary age limits.

How do we manage iron deficiency after blood donation?

Blood donors and the RBCs and other components they willingly provide are essential in the delivery of healthcare in all parts of the world. Nearly 70% of donated blood comes from repeat or committed donors. The amount of iron removed in the 10 min or so it takes to withdraw a unit of blood (500 ml, plus 25 ml for testing) requires over 24 weeks to replace on a "standard" diet, i.e., without added iron in the form of supplements The cumulative effect of repeat blood donations without adequate iron replacement or a longer wait between donations results in iron deficiency (ID) in many donors, low haemoglobin deferral (~8% of donation attempts), and frank anaemia in some. Moreover, ID can be associated with side effects that can impact a blood donor's health, such as fatigue, cognitive changes and other neuromuscular symptoms. In an effort to better identify and prevent ID, blood collection agencies are recommending various strategies, including changes in the donation interval, donation frequency, testing of iron status and iron supplementation. In this review, we present the evidence basis for these strategies and suggest our own approaches to improving iron balance in blood donors.

Ferritin testing to characterize and address iron deficiency in young donors.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency is observed in blood donors who meet hemoglobin requirements for donation. Frequent donation results in negative iron balance, and teenage donors may thus be at risk for adverse health consequences. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Blood Systems implemented ferritin testing on all successful 16- to 18-year-old (teen) donations. Low ferritin (LF) was defined as less than 20 ng/mL in females and less than 30 ng/mL in males. Donors with LF were deferred from red blood cell (RBC) donations (12 months for females, and 6 for males) and counseled to take low-dose iron for 60 days. A ferritin value less than 26 ng/mL indicated iron-deficient erythropoiesis and less than 12 ng/mL absent iron stores. RESULTS: Over 16 months, 110,417 teen donations were tested and represented 10.5% of all successful donations. The rate of absent iron stores was 9.0% (1.9% male; 15.9% female) and of iron-deficient erythropoiesis, 31.9% (12.4% male; 50.6% female). The rate of LF deferrals was 26.9% (16.7% male; 36.6% female). The proportion of LF donors decreased with increasing predonation hemoglobin and rose with increasing RBC donations in the prior 24 months. Seasonality in LF deferrals and the RBC contribution from teen donors was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ferritin testing of teen donors identified individuals with LF who might benefit from risk mitigation. LF is more common in teenage female than male donors and those with RBC donations in the prior 24 months. An appreciable number of new/lapsed donors presented with LF, however. These data may be useful in guiding future risk mitigation efforts.

Impact of changes to donor hemoglobin criteria on the rate of donor deferral.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration's requirements for "Blood and Blood Components Intended for Transfusion or Further Manufacturing Use" (Final Rule) effective May 2016 changed eligibility criteria for blood donors. A multivariate analysis was performed to measure its impact on donor deferral rates. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Four blood centers submitted data for similar 6-month periods before and after implementation of the Final Rule. Data included presenting donors, units collected, deferrals, intended products from deferred donors, deferral reasons, presenting donor demographics, donor hemoglobin (Hgb), hematocrit (HCT), pulse, blood pressure (BP), temperature, and other reasons for deferral. Data were aggregated and periods compared. RESULTS: After Final Rule implementation, successful donations decreased by 1.3% (83.1%-81.9%), despite a 0.2% increase in presenting donors. The rate of Hgb/HCT, pulse, and deferrals increased, while deferrals for other reasons decreased. Male Hgb/HCT deferral rates increased 1.2% (4213 total). Black male donors' Hgb/HCT deferral rate increased (2.7%-5.2%) but was counterbalanced by an overall 3.7% decrease in black female Hgb/HCT deferrals. While Hgb/HCT deferrals of black donors remained stable overall (17.0% vs. 16.2%), this trend was not observed by all centers. Deferrals for pulse increased (0.2%), as did BP deferrals (0.2%). CONCLUSION: Although there was a small increase in presenting donors after implementation of the Final Rule, there was a decrease in successful donations. While it appeared that deferral in black donors was unchanged, this trend was not observed across all centers. Pulse and BP deferrals rose dissimilarly among centers, according to individual procedures.