Reevaluation of the medical necessity of washed red blood cell transfusion in chronically transfused adults.

BACKGROUND: Washing red blood cell (RBC) units mitigates severe allergic transfusion reactions. However, washing reduces the time to expiration and the effective dose. Automated washing is time- and labor-intensive. A shortage of cell processor tubing sets prompted review of medical necessity for washed RBC for patients previously thought to require washing. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A single-center, retrospective study investigated discontinuing wash RBC protocols in chronically transfused adults. In select patients with prior requirements for washing, due to a history of allergic transfusion reactions, trials of unwashed transfusions were performed. Patient demographic, clinical, laboratory, and transfusion data were compiled. The per-unit washing cost was the sum of the tubing set, saline, and technical labor costs. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (median age 34 years interquartile range [IQR] 23-53 years, 46.7% female) were evaluated. These patients had been transfused with a median of 531 washed RBC units (IQR 244-1066) per patient over 12 years (IQR 5-18 years), most commonly for recurrent, non-severe allergic reactions. There were no transfusion reactions with unwashed RBCs aside from one patient with one episode of pruritus and another with recurrent pruritus, which was typical even with washed RBC. We decreased the mean number of washed RBC units per month by 72.9% (104 ± 10 vs. 28.2 ± 25.2; p < .0001) and saved US $100.25 per RBC unit. CONCLUSION: Washing of RBCs may be safely reconsidered in chronically transfused patients without a history of anaphylaxis. Washing should be implemented judiciously due to potential lack of necessity and logistical/operational challenges.

A rapid, point-of-care red blood cell agglutination assay detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality. There is an urgent need for serological tests to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, which could be used to assess past infection, evaluate responses to vaccines in development, and determine individuals who may be protected from future infection. Current serological tests developed for SARS-CoV-2 rely on traditional technologies such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and lateral flow assays, which have not scaled to meet the demand of hundreds of millions of antibody tests so far. Herein, we present an alternative method of antibody testing that depends on one protein reagent being added to patient serum/plasma or whole blood with direct, visual readout. Two novel fusion proteins, RBD-2E8 and B6-CH1-RBD, were designed to bind red blood cells (RBCs) via a single-chain variable fragment (scFv), thereby displaying the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on the surface of RBCs. Mixing mammalian-derived RBD-2E8 and B6-CH1-RBD with convalescent COVID-19 patient serum and RBCs led to visible hemagglutination, indicating the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 RBD. B6-CH1-RBD made in bacteria was not as effective in inducing agglutination, indicating better recognition of RBD epitopes from mammalian cells. Given that our hemagglutination test uses methods routinely used in hospital clinical labs across the world for blood typing, we anticipate the test can be rapidly deployed at minimal cost. We anticipate our hemagglutination assay may find extensive use in low-resource settings for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Isohemagglutinin titering performed on an automated solid-phase and hemagglutinin-based analyzer is comparable to results obtained by manual gel testing.

BACKGROUND: Isohemagglutinins (anti-A and anti-B) mediate hemolytic transfusion reactions, antibody-mediated rejection of solid-organ transplants, and delayed engraftment after stem cell transplant. However, quantification of isohemagglutinins is often labor intensive and operator dependent, limiting availability and interfacility comparisons. We evaluated an automated, solid-phase and agglutination-based antibody titer platform versus manual gel testing. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Plasma samples were obtained from 54 randomly selected patients. Titers were determined by our laboratory's standard assay (manual dilution followed by manual gel testing) and were compared to results obtained on a fully automated blood bank analyzer (Galileo NEO, Immucor). The analyzer determined immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies using solid-phase and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies by direct hemagglutination. RESULTS: Isohemagglutinin titers obtained by manual gel versus the automated assay generally (>80%) agreed within one doubling dilution, and always (100%) agreed within two dilutions. Among O samples, the gel titer and the highest titer obtained with the automated assay (either IgG or IgM) were similar in paired, nonparametric analysis (p = 0.06 for anti-A; p = 0.13 for anti-B). Gel titers from group A and group B patients were slightly higher than the highest titer obtained using the automated assay (p = 0.04 for group A; p = 0.009 for group B), although these differences were within the accepted error of measurement. CONCLUSION: Manual and automated methodologies yielded similar isohemagglutinin titers. Separate quantification of IgM and IgG isohemagglutinins via automated titration may yield additional insight into hemolysis, graft survival after ABO-incompatible transplantation, and red blood cell engraftment after ABO-incompatible stem cell transplant.