RHD-negative red cells may be avoided for patients with ambiguous serologic typing for the RHD antigen.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Serologic typing with monoclonal anti-D is mandatory for RHD antigen determination before transfusion, but due to aberrant (weak or partial) variants of RHD, results may be ambiguous and molecular RHD-typing is required. Before that, RHD-negative (RHD -) red blood cells concentrates (RBCs) shall be transfused to avoid anti-D formation, which probably leads to wastage of RHD - RBCs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: All patients with ambiguous results in serologic RHD-typing and molecular RHD-typing were assessed retrospectively. The proportions of patients at risk for anti-D formation and the proportion of RHD - RBCs transfused unnecessarily were evaluated for the following transfusion strategies: (1) RHD-positive (RHD + )RBCs for all patients, (2) RHD + RBCs for patients with at least 2+ reaction with anti-D, (3) RHD + RBCs for patients with C and/or E in their RHCE-phenotype, (4) RHD + RBCs for patients with C and/or E and at least 2+ reaction, and (5) RHD - RBCs for all patients. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients were included. Most had weak D type 1-3 and a minority had other, rare RHD variants. The risk of anti-D formation was 4.5%, 2.9%, 1.8%, 1.0%, and 0% for strategies 1-5, respectively. The proportion of RHD - RBCs transfused unnecessarily was 0%, 49.5%, 0.9%, 50.5%, and 95.5%. CONCLUSION: Transfusing patients with a C and/or E in their RHCE-phenotype with RHD + RBCs resulted in a very low risk of immunization while avoiding wastage of RHD - RBCs. Therefore, this strategy should be used for some patients with ambiguous results in serologic RHD-typing and pending results of molecular RHD-typing.

Completing the Donor History Questionnaire before the Donation Visit Can Improve Blood Safety.

Background and Objectives: In Germany, the donor history questionnaire (DHQ) is traditionally filled in at the donation center to avoid any influence of others. Since March 2020, it has been suggested to donors to answer the DHQ already at home and to call if they have any concerns to reduce the number of ineligible donors on-site during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: We evaluated the rate of ineligible donors before and after March 2020. Additionally, an anonymous online survey asking for the donors' attitude towards the DHQ was performed. It included questions on whether and for what reason the DHQ had been answered incorrectly in the past. Results: The rate of ineligible donors decreased by 27% (from 7.1% to 5.2%). In total, 5,556 of 10,252 invited donors completed the survey (54.2%). 88.6% reported either going through the DHQ at home or knowing all questions from their previous donations. 444 donors (8.0%) had at least once postponed a donation after reading the DHQ at home. 68 donors (1.2%) admitted having intentionally provided false answers in the past (9 at home, 43 on-site, 14 both, 2 unknown). Not wanting to be rejected once arriving at the donation center was an important motivation for 42% of donors answering incorrectly on-site. Details on 46 incorrect answers were provided: only 17 had no influence on donor eligibility or product quality. In 5 cases, some blood products might have had impaired quality. Truthful answers to 17 questions would have led to deferral, mostly due to increased risk for unrecognized viral infections transmitted by sexual contacts. For a further 7 questions, there was insufficient information available to determine possible consequences. Asked about their general opinion, 753 (13.6%) of all donors estimated the risk of incorrect answers being greater on-site, while 239 (4.3%) presumed an increased risk at home. Conclusion: Answering the DHQ prior to a donation visit prevented ineligible donors from visiting the donation center. Furthermore, it might improve honesty, as the discomfort of being deferred after arriving at the donation center was an important reason to answer incorrectly. Overall, there was no increased risk of donor or product safety, and potentially even a benefit.

Infectivity of blood products containing cytomegalovirus DNA: results of a lookback study in nonimmunocompromised patients.

BACKGROUND: DNA of human cytomegalovirus (CMV) is frequently detected in plasma of donors with primary CMV infection. It is unknown, however, whether leukoreduced blood products from these donors contain sufficient amounts of infectious virus to cause transfusion-transmitted CMV infections (TT-CMV). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: During a 14-year period, CMV DNA-positive donations were identified as part of several previously published studies. Additionally, further donors with seroconversion were tested for CMV DNA. The serostatus of patients who had received a CMV DNA-positive blood product was determined out of pretransfusion samples. Later samples were examined for development of CMV antibodies. Patients with a follow-up of less than 140 days were also tested for CMV DNA. RESULTS: A total of 221 blood products from CMV DNA-positive donations were transfused to 219 recipients. Pretransfusion samples were available for 179 patients, of whom 62 (34.6%) were seronegative. For 39 seronegative recipients of 40 blood products follow-up samples drawn at least 30 days after transfusion were available. The median duration of follow-up was 287 days (range, 38-3784 days). Thirty-six patients were still CMV seronegative in their last sample. Three patients were CMV seropositive due to passive antibody transfer by plasma rich products from seropositive donors, but CMV DNA negative in all tested samples. CONCLUSION: TT-CMV was excluded in all recipients of 40 blood products from CMV DNA-positive donations. This corresponds to a 95% interval of confidence for the risk of TT-CMV of less than 7.4%. Because no patient belonged to a typical at-risk population, the results are only valid for immunocompetent subjects.

Unacceptable human leucocyte antigens for organ offers in the era of organ shortage: influence on waiting time before kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The assignment of human leucocyte antigens (HLAs) against which antibodies are detected as unacceptable antigens (UAGs) avoids allocation of HLA- incompatible allografts. There is uncertainty as to what extent UAGs decrease the probability of receiving a kidney offer. METHODS: Kidney transplantations in 3264 patients on the waiting lists of six German transplant centres were evaluated for a period of at least 2 years. The proportion of excluded offers due to UAGs was calculated as virtual panel-reactive antibodies (vPRAs). RESULTS: In the common Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation Scheme, the transplant probability was unaffected by vPRAs in exploratory univariate analyses. In the multivariable model, a 1% increase in vPRA values was outweighed by an additional waiting time of 2.5 weeks. The model was confirmed using an external validation cohort of 1521 patients from seven centres. If only patients with standard risk were considered (e.g. no simultaneous transplantation of other organs), only 1.3 weeks additional waiting time was needed. In the Eurotransplant Senior Program, patients with vPRA values >50% had a strongly reduced transplant probability in the unadjusted analyses. In the multivariable model, a 1% increase in vPRA values was outweighed by an additional waiting time of 5 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the assignment of UAGs decreases the transplant probability in both main Eurotransplant allocation programs because of insufficient compensatory mechanisms. At present, for immunized patients, a prolonged waiting time has to be weighed against the increased immunologic risk due to donor-specific antibodies not assigned as UAGs.

Development of a high-resolution NGS-based HLA-typing and analysis pipeline.

The human leukocyte antigen (HLA) complex contains the most polymorphic genes in the human genome. The classical HLA class I and II genes define the specificity of adaptive immune responses. Genetic variation at the HLA genes is associated with susceptibility to autoimmune and infectious diseases and plays a major role in transplantation medicine and immunology. Currently, the HLA genes are characterized using Sanger- or next-generation sequencing (NGS) of a limited amplicon repertoire or labeled oligonucleotides for allele-specific sequences. High-quality NGS-based methods are in proprietary use and not publicly available. Here, we introduce the first highly automated open-kit/open-source HLA-typing method for NGS. The method employs in-solution targeted capturing of the classical class I (HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C) and class II HLA genes (HLA-DRB1, HLA-DQA1, HLA-DQB1, HLA-DPA1, HLA-DPB1). The calling algorithm allows for highly confident allele-calling to three-field resolution (cDNA nucleotide variants). The method was validated on 357 commercially available DNA samples with known HLA alleles obtained by classical typing. Our results showed on average an accurate allele call rate of 0.99 in a fully automated manner, identifying also errors in the reference data. Finally, our method provides the flexibility to add further enrichment target regions.

Cytomegalovirus Serostatus as Predictor for Adverse Events After Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: To clarify whether reactivated cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections in critically ill patients lead to worse outcome or just identify more severely ill patients. If CMV has a pathogenic role, latently infected (CMV-seropositive) patients should have worse outcome than seronegative patients because only seropositive patients can experience a CMV reactivation. DESIGN: Post-hoc analysis of a prospective observational study. SETTING: Single university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 983 consecutive patients scheduled for on-pump surgery. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: CMV antibodies were analyzed in preoperative plasma samples. Postoperative adverse events (reintubation, low cardiac output or reinfarction, dialysis, stroke) and 30-day and 1-year mortality were evaluated prospectively. The plasma of reintubated patients and matched control patients was tested for CMV deoxyribonucleic acid, and 618 patients were found to be seropositive for CMV (63%). Among these, the risk for reintubation was increased (10% v 4%, p = 0.001). This increase remained significant after correction for confounding factors (odds ratio 2.70, p = 0.003) and was detectable from the third postoperative day throughout the whole postoperative period. Other outcome parameters were not different. Reintubated seropositive patients were more frequently CMV deoxyribonucleic acid-positive than were matched control patients (40% v 8%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CMV-seropositive patients had an increased risk of reintubation after cardiac surgery, which was associated with reactivations of their CMV infections. Additional studies should determine whether this complication may be prevented by monitoring of latently infected patients and administering antiviral treatment for reactivated CMV infections.

Prevention of Transfusion-Transmitted Cytomegalovirus Infections: Which is the Optimal Strategy?

Traditionally, leukoreduction and selection of blood products from seronegative donors have been used as alternative strategies to reduce the risk of transfusion-transmitted cytomegalovirus infections (TT-CMV) in atrisk patients. After the introduction of universal leukoreduction for red blood cell and platelet concentrates in Germany, a controversy evolved as to whether the additional selection of blood products from seronegative donors would reduce or even increase the risk of TT-CMV. This review summarizes the current knowledge about CMV infections in blood donors and the implications of this information on the effect of potential transfusion strategies. Even though there are conflicting data about the incidence of TT-CMV remaining after the introduction of leukodepletion, it has been clearly shown that both prevalence and concentration of CMV DNA in peripheral blood are highest in newly seropositive donors. Therefore, avoidance of blood products from these donors is the most important goal of any transfusion strategy. This goal can be reached by: i) selection of blood products from seronegative donors, ii) provision of CMV DNA-negative blood products, or iii) provision of blood from long-term seropositive donors. In cases of suspected TT-CMV, all implicated donors should be investigated carefully to gather further knowledge on which donors confer the lowest risk for TT-CMV.

The impact of donor cytomegalovirus DNA on transfusion strategies for at-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA is frequently detected in plasma of newly seropositive donors. Selection of leukoreduced blood products from donors with remote CMV infection could avoid transfusion-transmitted CMV infections (TT-CMV) due to primarily infected donors. However, there are no data about the prevalence of reactivations in long-term seropositive donors compared to the incidence of window period donations in seronegative donors. Therefore, the optimal transfusion strategy for at-risk patients is unclear. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Whole blood samples from 22,904 donations were tested for CMV DNA, and CMV DNA-positive donations were categorized as donations from 1) seronegative donors, 2) newly seropositive donors, and 3) long-term seropositive donors. RESULTS: Twenty-one donors were reproducibly CMV DNA-positive (0.09%). Frequency of detection and concentration of CMV DNA in whole blood were comparable for seronegative and long-term seropositive donors. Nonreproducibly positive results for CMV DNA in whole blood were more frequent in long-term seropositive donors (0.16% vs. 0.01%, p<0.01). Only low concentrations of CMV DNA in plasma were detectable in two seronegative donors and one long-term seropositive donor. Highest concentrations of CMV DNA in both whole blood and plasma, however, were found in newly seropositive donors. CONCLUSION: Prevalences of window period donations among seronegative donors and reactivations among long-term seropositive donors, as well as the CMV DNA concentration in whole blood and plasma samples from these donors, are comparable. Therefore, blood products from both groups could be used for patients at risk for TT-CMV, while those of newly seropositive donors seem to bear an increased risk.

Window period donations during primary cytomegalovirus infection and risk of transfusion-transmitted infections.

BACKGROUND: Donors with short interdonation intervals (e.g., apheresis donors) have an increased risk of window period donations. The frequency of cytomegalovirus (CMV) window period donations is important information to decide whether selection of seronegative donors might be advantageous for patients at risk for transfusion-transmitted CMV infections (TT-CMV). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: CMV seroconversion in 93 donors with positive results in routine CMV antibody testing within at most 35 days after the last seronegative sample was evaluated by Western blot and/or a second antibody test. In donors with unconfirmed seroconversion, an additional later sample was tested. Concentration of CMV DNA was determined in pre- and postseroconversion samples. RESULTS: CMV seroconversion was confirmed in 12 donors (13%). Among these, the last seronegative sample was CMV DNA positive in three donors (25%, below 30 IU/mL). The first seropositive sample was CMV DNA positive in 10 donors (83%, maximum 1600 IU/mL). Both prevalence and median concentration of CMV DNA were higher in the first seropositive sample (p = 0.004 and p = 0.02), with maximum concentrations being reached about 2 weeks after seroconversion. No CMV DNA was detected in samples from donors with unconfirmed seroconversion. CONCLUSION: At least in donors with short interdonation intervals, most suspected CMV seroconversions are due to false-positive results of the screening test. As window period donations are rare and contain less CMV DNA than the first seropositive donation, avoidance of blood products from primarily seropositive donors is especially helpful to avoid TT-CMV if donors with short interdonation intervals are concerned.

Monitoring the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: Prevalence of Antibodies in a Large, Repetitive Cross-Sectional Study of Blood Donors in Germany-Results from the SeBluCo Study 2020-2022.

SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance is important to adapt infection control measures and estimate the degree of underreporting. Blood donor samples can be used as a proxy for the healthy adult population. In a repeated cross-sectional study from April 2020 to April 2021, September 2021, and April/May 2022, 13 blood establishments collected 134,510 anonymised specimens from blood donors in 28 study regions across Germany. These were tested for antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and nucleocapsid, including neutralising capacity. Seroprevalence was adjusted for test performance and sampling and weighted for demographic differences between the sample and the general population. Seroprevalence estimates were compared to notified COVID-19 cases. The overall adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence remained below 2% until December 2020 and increased to 18.1% in April 2021, 89.4% in September 2021, and to 100% in April/May 2022. Neutralising capacity was found in 74% of all positive specimens until April 2021 and in 98% in April/May 2022. Our serosurveillance allowed for repeated estimations of underreporting from the early stage of the pandemic onwards. Underreporting ranged between factors 5.1 and 1.1 in the first two waves of the pandemic and remained well below 2 afterwards, indicating an adequate test strategy and notification system in Germany.

Prognostic value and cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for HLA antibodies prior to kidney transplantation.

HLA antibody screening is conducted routinely prior to kidney transplantation, but the comparative prognostic value and cost-effectiveness of different methods are unclear. Pre-transplant sera of 141 patients transplanted between 1998 and 2000 were screened by ELISA and Luminex assays, and antibody specificities of reactive sera determined using bead array techniques. ELISA screening detected donor-specific antibodies (DSA) in 19 patients, who had a higher incidence of impaired graft function (60% vs. 20%, p = 0.04) and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) within 90 d after transplantation (AMR, 35% vs. 5%, p = 0.02). Luminex screening detected eight additional patients with DSA, among those one with AMR. Six of eight patients with Luminex-only-DSA reported no prior immunizing events. Death-censored graft survival was shorter only in patients with DSA and AMR (median, 1.7 yr instead of between 9.5 and 11.0 yr for patients without DSA or patients with DSA but no AMR, p < 0.001). Material costs per detected clinically relevant DSA were about 57% higher for Luminex screening, but this increase could be avoided by modifying the cut-off recommended by the manufacturer. Conclusively, specification of antibodies only in sera reactive in screening tests was cost-effective to prevent shortened graft survival. Preformed DSA were only harmful if AMR was diagnosed within 90 d after transplantation.

Determination of unacceptable HLA antigen mismatches in kidney transplant recipients.

With the introduction of the virtual allocation crossmatch in the Eurotransplant (ET) region in 2023, the determination of unacceptable antigen mismatches (UAM) in kidney transplant recipients is of utmost importance for histocompatibility laboratories and transplant centers. Therefore, a joined working group of members from the German Society for Immunogenetics (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Immungenetik, DGI) and the German Transplantation Society (Deutsche Transplantationsgesellschaft, DTG) revised and updated the previous recommendations from 2015 in light of recently published evidence. Like in the previous version, a wide range of topics is covered from technical issues to clinical risk factors. This review summarizes the evidence about the prognostic value of contemporary methods for HLA antibody detection and identification, as well as the impact of UAM on waiting time, on which these recommendations are based. As no clear criteria could be determined to differentiate potentially harmful from harmless HLA antibodies, the general recommendation is to assign all HLA against which plausible antibodies are found as UAM. There is, however, a need for individualized solutions for highly immunized patients. These revised recommendations provide a list of aspects that need to be considered when assigning UAM to enable a fair and comprehensible procedure and to harmonize risk stratification prior to kidney transplantation between transplant centers.

Differences in Immunogenicity of Three Different Homo- and Heterologous Vaccination Regimens against SARS-CoV-2.

Background: Due to findings on adverse reactions and clinical efficacy of different vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2, the administration of vaccination regimens containing both adenoviral vector vaccines and mRNA-based vaccines has become common. Data are still needed on the direct comparison of immunogenicity for these different regimens. Methods: We compared markers for immunogenicity (anti-S1 IgG/IgA, neutralizing antibodies, and T-cell response) with three different vaccination regimens (homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n = 103), or mixture of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 with mRNA-1273 (n = 116) or BNT162b2 (n = 105)) at two time points: the day of the second vaccination as a baseline and 14 days later. Results: All examined vaccination regimens elicited measurable immune responses that were significantly enhanced after the second dose. Homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was markedly inferior in immunogenicity to all other examined regimens after administration of the second dose. Between the heterologous regimens, mRNA-1273 as second dose induced greater antibody responses than BNT162b2, with no difference found for neutralizing antibodies and T-cell response. Discussion: While these findings allow no prediction about clinical protection, from an immunological point of view, vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with an mRNA-based vaccine at one or both time points appears preferable to homologous vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Whether or not the demonstrated differences between the heterologous regimens are of clinical significance will be subject to further research.

Kinetics of the Antibody Response to Boostering With Three Different Vaccines Against SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Heterologous vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and a second dose of an mRNA-based vaccine have been shown to be more immunogenic than homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the current study, we examined the kinetics of the antibody response to the second dose of three different vaccination regimens (homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vs. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 + BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) against SARS-CoV-2 in a longitudinal manner; whether there are differences in latency or amplitude of the early response and which markers are most suitable to detect these responses. METHODS: We performed assays for anti-S1 IgG and IgA, anti-NCP IgG and a surrogate neutralization assay on serum samples collected from 57 participants on the day of the second vaccination as well as the following seven days. RESULTS: All examined vaccination regimens induced detectable antibody responses within the examined time frame. Both heterologous regimens induced responses earlier and with a higher amplitude than homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Between the heterologous regimens, amplitudes were somewhat higher for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 + mRNA-1273. There was no difference in latency between the IgG and IgA responses. Increases in the surrogate neutralization assay were the first changes to be detectable for all regimens and the only significant change seen for homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. DISCUSSION: Both examined heterologous vaccination regimens are superior in immunogenicity, including the latency of the response, to homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. While the IgA response has a shorter latency than the IgG response after the first dose, no such difference was found after the second dose, implying that both responses are driven by separate plasma cell populations. Early and steep increases in surrogate neutralization levels suggest that this might be a more sensitive marker for antibody responses after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 than absolute levels of anti-S1 IgG.

Reliability of capillary hemoglobin screening under routine conditions.

BACKGROUND: Capillary hemoglobin (Hb) measurement before admission for whole blood donation is performed in many blood donation services, in spite of several studies reporting many donors with low Hb values being missed by capillary Hb screening. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Predonation capillary and venous Hb levels of 9209 first-time donors presenting for whole blood donation were compared. Hb testing was conducted by photometric determination of finger-stick samples with a photometric method (Donor Checker, HemoCue) and using a hematology analyzer for venous samples. RESULTS: Both capillary and venous Hb measurements were available for 8910 donors (96.8%). The arithmetic mean deviation of the capillary Hb from the venous sample was +1.5 ± 6.8 g/L, and the mean deviation was 5.4 ± 4.5 g/L. In 7865 donors (88%), capillary and venous Hb values differed less than 10 g/L from each other, but in 86 donors (1.0%) the difference was at least 20 g/L, and in 10 donors (0.1%), even 30 g/L or more. In 93.3% of females and 98.7% of males, the categorization as having sufficient or too low Hb for blood donation was concordant between capillary and venous measurements. A total of 34.4% of donors with too low results of capillary Hb screening had sufficient venous Hb levels. Only one donor (0.01%) passed the capillary Hb screening despite venous Hb values below 110 g/L. CONCLUSION: The currently available methods for capillary Hb screening allow reliable determination of predonation Hb values under routine conditions. Additional venous Hb measurements in donors with too low capillary Hb values might reduce the rate of deferred donors by approximately one-third.

Evaluation of algorithms for the diagnostic assessment and the reentry of blood donors who tested reactive for antibodies against hepatitis B core antigen.

BACKGROUND: Screening of blood donations for antibodies against hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc) is an accepted method to prevent some transfusion-transmitted hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections. However, anti-HBc testing may result in donor loss due to unspecific results in the currently available anti-HBc tests. Algorithms to distinguish true-positive from false-positive results and for reentry of those donors who tested false anti-HBc positive were evaluated retrospectively. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Samples that tested reactive for anti-HBc by chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) were investigated for anti-HBc by microparticle immunoassay, for anti-HBs and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) by CMIA, and for HBV DNA by individual-donor nucleic acid testing. Results were classified true positive, indeterminate, and false positive for anti-HBc. Donors who tested indeterminate and false positive were admitted for reentry if follow-up testing for anti-HBc became negative and no further evidence for an HBV infection was apparent. RESULTS: A total of 554 of 148,000 samples, taken from 30,000 individuals within 3 years tested reactive for anti-HBc by CMIA. Of those, 553 could be further classified: 142 (26%) true positive, 76 (14%) indeterminate, and 335 (60%) false positive. A total of 214 of 411 (52%) samples termed indeterminate or false positive were admitted for reentry and able to provide further donations. In one donor, anti-HBc-positive/HBsAg- and HBV DNA-negative HBV DNA was detectable during follow-up. CONCLUSION: According to our proposed algorithm, 26% of anti-HBc-reactive results tested by CMIA were true positive. Many donors tested indeterminate or false positive can provide future donations if our proposed algorithm for reentry is applied. One donor at risk for transmitting HBV was identified solely by anti-HBc testing.

Appearance of new CDC-reactive antibodies in patients waiting for kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Patients awaiting kidney transplantation are regularly screened for HLA-antibodies, but there is scarce data about the optimal interval. METHODS: Results from Complement-dependent cytotoxicity testing (CDC) for waitlisted patients were reviewed for increases in panel reactive antibodies (PRA) by at least 10%-points. Clinical records were screened for historic immunizing events and possible trigger factors preceding the PRA-increase. Additionally, non-pretransplanted men tested negative for HLA antibodies by solid-phase assays (SPA) out of their first two samples on the waiting list ("non-immunized men") were evaluated for detection of HLA antibodies by SPA during their further stay on the waiting list. RESULTS: 15,360 samples from 1928 patients tested by CDC were analyzed for changes in PRA. PRA-increases occurred most frequently in patients waitlisted recently for retransplantation (annual incidence 6%). Removal of previous transplants, severe infections and/or reduced immunosuppression triggered 65% of PRA-increases during the first year after waitlisting. Transfusions accounted for 55% of PRA-increases in later years. Leucocyte-reduced red blood cell units not only boosted historic antibodies, but even induced primary immunization. In the second part of the study, 6780 samples tested by SPA from 703 non-immunized men were evaluated for development of HLA-antibodies. Only 9 men (1.3%) turned HLA antibody-positive (annual incidence 0.4%). CONCLUSION: A uniform screening interval does not fit all: Frequencies should be highest in patients newly waitlisted for re-transplant and lowest in non-immunized men. Transfused patients should be monitored closely for development of HLA-antibodies even if leukoreduced products are used.

Live Birth Rates after Active Immunization with Partner Lymphocytes.

Although many potential causes have been established for recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and recurrent miscarriage (RM), about 50% of these remain idiopathic. Scientific research is focused on immunological risk factors. In the present study, we aim to evaluate live birth rates after immunization with paternal lymphocytes (lymphocyte immunotherapy (LIT)). This retrospective study consisted of 148 couples with a history of RM and/or RIF. The women underwent immunization with lymphocytes of their respective partners from November 2017 to August 2019. Fifty-five patients (43%) had live births. Stratified by indication (RM, RIF, combined), live birth rates in the RM and the combined group were significantly higher than that in the RIF group (53%, 59% and 33%, respectively, p = 0.02). The difference was especially noticeable during the first 90 days after immunization (conception rate leading to live births: 31%, 23% and 8% for RM, the combined group and RIF, respectively; p = 0.005), while there was no difference between groups during the later follow-up. LIT was associated with high live birth rates, especially in women with recurrent miscarriage. In view of the limited data from randomized studies, LIT cannot be recommended as routine therapy. However, it may be considered in individual cases.

Clinical characteristics of headache after vaccination against COVID-19 (coronavirus SARS-CoV-2) with the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine: a multicentre observational cohort study.

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 causes the infectious disease COVID-19. Newly developed mRNA vaccines can prevent the spread of the virus. Headache is the most common neurological symptom in over 50% of those vaccinated. Detailed information about the clinical characteristics of this form of headache has not yet been described. The aim of the study is to examine in detail the clinical characteristics of headaches occurring after vaccination against COVID-19 with the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for the first time. In a multicentre observational cohort study, data on the clinical features and corresponding variables were recorded using a standardized online questionnaire. The questionnaire was circulated to 12 000 residential care homes of the elderly as well as tertiary university hospitals in Germany and the United Arab Emirates. The primary outcomes of this study are the clinical features of headache after vaccination. Comorbidities, treatment with medication and sociodemographic variables are also analysed. A total of 2349 participants reported headaches after vaccination with the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Headaches occur an average of 18.0 ± 27.0 h after vaccination and last an average duration of 14.2 ± 21.3 h. Only 9.7% of those affected also report headaches resulting from previous vaccinations. In 66.6% of the participants, headache occurs as a single episode. A bilateral location is indicated by 73.1% of the participants. This is most often found on the forehead (38.0%) and temples (32.1%). A pressing pain character is indicated by 49.2% and 40.7% report a dull pain character. The pain intensity is most often moderate (46.2%), severe (32.1%) or very severe (8.2%). The most common accompanying symptoms are fatigue (38.8%), exhaustion (25.7%) and muscle pain (23.4%). Headaches after COVID-19 vaccination show an extensive complex of symptoms. The constellation of accompanying symptoms together with the temporal and spatial headache characteristics delimit a distinctive headache phenotype.

Headache Attributed to Vaccination Against COVID-19 (Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2) with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) Vaccine: A Multicenter Observational Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: The most frequently reported neurological adverse event of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine is headache in 57.5%. Several cases of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) have developed after vaccination. Headache is the leading symptom of CVT. For the differential diagnosis of headaches attributed to this vaccine and headaches attributed to CVT, it is of central clinical importance whether and, if so, how the phenotypes and course of these headaches can be differentiated. The study aims to examine in detail the phenotype of headache attributed to this vaccine. METHODS: Data on the clinical features and corresponding variables were recorded using a standardized online questionnaire in this multicenter observational cohort study. The primary outcomes of this study are the clinical features of headaches after vaccination. FINDINGS: A total of 2464 participants reported headaches after vaccination with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine. On average, headaches occurred 14.5 ± 21.6 h after vaccination and lasted 16.3 ± 30.4 h. A bilateral location was described by 75.8% of participants. This is most often found on the forehead (40.0%) and temples (31.4%); 50.4% reported a pressing and 37.7% a dull pain character. Headache intensity was most often severe (38.7%), moderate (35.2%), or very severe (15.5%). Accompanying symptoms were most commonly fatigue (44.8%), chills (36.1%), exhaustion (34.9%), and fever (30.4%). CONCLUSION: Headaches attributed to COVID-19 vaccination with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine demonstrate an extensive and characteristic complex of symptoms. The findings have several important clinical implications for the differentiation of post-vaccinal headache and other primary as well as secondary headaches.