Serologic reactivity of unidentified specificity in antenatal testing and hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn: The BEST collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of serologic reactivity of unidentified specificity (SRUS) in pregnancy is not clear based on available literature. The aim of this study is to determine if SRUS is associated with hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective data were collected from eight institutions over an 11-year study period (2010-2020), when available (5/8 sites). The outcome of the pregnancies with SRUS-no, mild, moderate, or severe HDFN-was determined. RESULTS: SRUS was demonstrated in 589 pregnancies. After excluding those with incomplete data, a total of 284 pregnancies were included in the primary HDFN outcome analysis. SRUS was detected in 124 (44%) pregnancies in isolation, and none were affected by HDFN. Of 41 pregnancies with SRUS and ABO incompatibility, 37 (90%) were unaffected, and 4 (10%) were associated with mild HDFN. Of 98 pregnancies with SRUS and concurrent identifiable antibody reactivity(s), 80 (81%) were unaffected, and 19 (19%) were associated with mild to severe HDFN. There was 1 case of mild HDFN and 1 case of severe HDFN in the 21 pregnancies with SRUS, ABO incompatibility, and concurrent identifiable antibody reactivity(s), and 19 (90%) were unaffected by HDFN. Among all patients with repeat testing, newly identified alloantibodies or other antibodies were identified in 63 of 212 (30%) patients. Although most were not clinically significant, on occasion SRUS preceded clinically significant antibody(s) associated with HDFN (3%, 5/188). CONCLUSION: The antenatal serologic finding of SRUS in isolation is not associated with HDFN but may precede clinically significant antibodies.

Hospital red blood cell and platelet supply and utilization from March to December of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: The BEST collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: At the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, widespread blood shortages were anticipated. We sought to determine how hospital blood supply and blood utilization were affected by the first wave of COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Weekly red blood cell (RBC) and platelet (PLT) inventory, transfusion, and outdate data were collected from 13 institutions in the United States, Brazil, Canada, and Denmark from March 1st to December 31st of 2020 and 2019. Data from the sites were aligned based on each site's local first peak of COVID-19 cases, and data from 2020 (pandemic year) were compared with data from the corresponding period in 2019 (pre-pandemic baseline). RESULTS: RBC inventories were 3% lower in 2020 than in 2019 (680 vs. 704, p < .001) and 5% fewer RBCs were transfused per week compared to 2019 (477 vs. 501, p < .001). However, during the first COVID-19 peak, RBC and PLT inventories were higher than normal, as reflected by deviation from par, days on hand, and percent outdated. At this time, 16% fewer inpatient beds were occupied, and 43% fewer surgeries were performed compared to 2019 (p < .001). In contrast to 2019 when there was no correlation, there was, in 2020, significant negative correlations between RBC and PLT days on hand and both percentage occupancy of inpatient beds and percentage of surgeries performed. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, RBC and PLT inventories remained adequate. During the first wave of cases, significant decreases in patient care activities were associated with excess RBC and PLT supplies and increased product outdating.

Treatment of immunocompromised COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma.

Immunosuppressed patients such as solid organ transplant and hematologic malignancy patients appear to be at increased risk for morbidity and mortality due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Convalescent plasma, a method of passive immunization that has been applied to prior viral pandemics, holds promise as a potential treatment for COVID-19. Immunocompromised patients may experience more benefit from convalescent plasma given underlying deficits in B and T cell immunity as well as contraindications to antiviral and immunomodulatory therapy. We describe our institutional experience with four immunosuppressed patients (two kidney transplant recipients, one lung transplant recipient, and one chronic myelogenous leukemia patient) treated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma through the Expanded Access Program (NCT04338360). All patients clinically improved after administration (two fully recovered and two discharged to skilled nursing facilities) and none experienced a transfusion reaction. We also report the characteristics of convalescent plasma product from a local blood center including positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG and negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR in all samples tested. This preliminary evidence suggest that convalescent plasma may be safe among immunosuppressed patients with COVID-19 and emphasizes the need for further data on the efficacy of convalescent plasma as either primary or adjunctive therapy for COVID-19.