Hepatitis E virus in Spanish donors and the necessity for screening.

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) represents a major health problem worldwide. As the course of HEV cases is often subclinical, asymptomatic infections could represent an important source of viral spread and infection via routes such as blood donations. Before universal screening for HEV in blood donations can be implemented, studies evaluating the incidence of infection are needed to establish the potential risk of viral transmission. This is a prospective longitudinal study that included blood donors recruited at the Hospital de Ciudad Real Transfusion Service between October 2017 and January 2018. Pools of eight donations were tested for HEV viremia by PCR. Positive pools were individually evaluated following the same procedure. Positive samples were tested for anti-HEV IgG and IgM. Recipients of blood transfusions obtained from HEV-positive donors were retrospectively evaluated. The prevalence of HEV was calculated. A total of 11 313 healthy donors were analysed during the study period. Four blood donations from four different donors were HEV RNA-reactive. The prevalence of HEV infection was 0.035% (95% CI: 0.01%-0.09%), which meant a ratio of one positive donation per 2828 donations. All donors were negative for anti-HEV IgM at the time of the donation. Five patients received transfusions from HEV-positive blood donations, none of them showed an increase in alanine aminotransferase levels after transfusion. In conclusion, our study found a high prevalence of HEV infection in blood donors from south-central Spain. In view of the prevalence, Spanish blood banks should carefully consider including screening for HEV.

The spatial pattern of human exposure to Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus is not consistent with red deer-based risk predictions.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the spatial risk of exposure to Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) infection of healthy blood donors in an enzootic region with a predicted risk gradient based on a virus-animal interaction risk model. We designed a cross-sectional study to test if the exposure pattern of the human population to CCHFV spatially matches the predicted risk. We randomly selected 1384 donors from different risk gradients and analyzed their sera searching for CCHFV antibodies. None of the selected blood donors showed exposure to CCHFV. This study shows that exposure risk spatial patterns, as predicted from animal-tick-virus models, does not necessarily match the pattern of human-infected tick interactions leading to CCHFV infection and CCHF cases, at least in a region of predicted moderate infection risk. The findings suggest that future studies should bear the potential drivers of tick-human encounter rates into account to more accurately predict risks.

A multicenter randomized open-label clinical trial for convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUNDPassive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CP) is a potential treatment for COVID-19. Evidence from controlled clinical trials is inconclusive.METHODSWe conducted a randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial at 27 hospitals in Spain. Patients had to be admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia within 7 days from symptom onset and not on mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen devices. Patients were randomized 1:1 to treatment with CP in addition to standard of care (SOC) or to the control arm receiving only SOC. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in categories 5 (noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen), 6 (invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), or 7 (death) at 14 days. Primary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population.RESULTSBetween April 4, 2020, and February 5, 2021, 350 patients were randomly assigned to either CP (n = 179) or SOC (n = 171). At 14 days, proportion of patients in categories 5, 6, or 7 was 11.7% in the CP group versus 16.4% in the control group (P = 0.205). The difference was greater at 28 days, with 8.4% of patients in categories 5-7 in the CP group versus 17.0% in the control group (P = 0.021). The difference in overall survival did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19-1.14, log-rank P = 0.087).CONCLUSIONCP showed a significant benefit in preventing progression to noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO, or death at 28 days. The effect on the predefined primary endpoint at 14 days and the effect on overall survival were not statistically significant.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicaltrials.gov, NCT04345523.FUNDINGGovernment of Spain, Instituto de Salud Carlos III.