Analysis of gender representation on transfusion medicine journal editorial boards: Comparison between 2019 and 2022.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A 2019 study highlighted significant gender inequities among blood banking and transfusion medicine (BBTM) journal editorial boards. We sought to assess if the representation of women has improved in the intervening 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed the gender composition of nine BBTM journal editorial boards as of 13 September 2022, including the seven journals studied in 2019. We compared this to the proportion of females (term used by authors) on seven BBTM journal editorial boards in 2019 to assess change in the editorial board composition. We also assessed gender composition by editorial position (editor-in-chief [EIC], associate/assistant/titled editors and editorial board members). RESULTS: Nine BBTM journals have a total of 398 editorial positions and comprise significantly more men than women (68.8%, 274/398 vs. 31.2%, 124/398; p < 0.001). Among the seven journals analysed in 2019, the proportion of women on these seven editorial boards has remained unchanged (2019: 30.1%, 81/269 vs. 2022: 31.9%, 103/323; p = 0.66) despite the addition of 54 editorial positions. CONCLUSION: Women remain inequitably represented on journal editorial boards among all journal editorial positions. Although advocacy efforts are increasing, there has been limited improvement in gender equity in 3 years, despite a 20% increase in editorial positions.

Transfusion reactions associated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma therapy for SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma (CP) for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has shown preliminary signs of effectiveness in moderate to severely ill patients in reducing mortality. While studies have demonstrated a low risk of serious adverse events, the comprehensive incidence and nature of the spectrum of transfusion reactions to CP is unknown. We retrospectively examined 427 adult inpatient CP transfusions to determine incidence and types of reactions, as well as clinical parameters and risk factors associated with transfusion reactions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed for 427 transfusions to 215 adult patients with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) within the Mount Sinai Health System, through the US Food and Drug Administration emergency investigational new drug and the Mayo Clinic Expanded Access Protocol to Convalescent Plasma approval pathways. Transfusions were blindly evaluated by two reviewers and adjudicated by a third reviewer in discordant cases. Patient demographics and clinical and laboratory parameters were compared and analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-five reactions from 427 transfusions were identified (12.9% incidence), and 13 were attributed to transfusion (3.1% incidence). Reactions were classified as underlying COVID-19 (76%), febrile nonhemolytic (10.9%), transfusion-associated circulatory overload (9.1%), and allergic (1.8%) and hypotensive (1.8%) reactions. Statistical analysis identified increased transfusion reaction risk for ABO blood group B or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores of 12 to 13, and decreased risk within the age group of 80 to 89 years. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the use of CP as a safe, therapeutic option from a transfusion reaction perspective, in the setting of COVID-19. Further studies are needed to confirm the clinical significance of ABO group B, age, and predisposing disease severity in the incidence of transfusion reaction events.

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.