Early Outpatient Treatment for Covid-19 with Convalescent Plasma.

BACKGROUND: Polyclonal convalescent plasma may be obtained from donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this plasma in preventing serious complications in outpatients with recent-onset Covid-19 is uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 convalescent plasma, as compared with control plasma, in symptomatic adults (≥18 years of age) who had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status. Participants were enrolled within 8 days after symptom onset and received a transfusion within 1 day after randomization. The primary outcome was Covid-19-related hospitalization within 28 days after transfusion. RESULTS: Participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, through October 1, 2021. A total of 1225 participants underwent randomization, and 1181 received a transfusion. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a transfusion, the primary outcome occurred in 17 of 592 participants (2.9%) who received convalescent plasma and 37 of 589 participants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 5.8; P = 0.005), which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 54%. Evidence of efficacy in vaccinated participants cannot be inferred from these data because 53 of the 54 participants with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were unvaccinated and 1 participant was partially vaccinated. A total of 16 grade 3 or 4 adverse events (7 in the convalescent-plasma group and 9 in the control-plasma group) occurred in participants who were not hospitalized. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with Covid-19, most of whom were unvaccinated, the administration of convalescent plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. (Funded by the Department of Defense and others; CSSC-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.).

Transfusion reactions associated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma in outpatient clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important therapeutic option for outpatients at high risk of hospitalization from SARS-CoV-2 infection. We assessed the safety of outpatient CCP transfusions administered during clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed data pertaining to transfusion-related reactions from two randomized controlled trials in the U.S. that evaluated the efficacy of CCP versus control plasma in various ambulatory settings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess whether CCP was associated with transfusion reactions, after adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: The combined study reported 79/1351 (5.9%) adverse events during the transfusion visit, with the majority 62/1351 (4.6%) characterized by mild, allergic-type findings of urticaria, and/or pruritus consistent with minor allergic transfusion reactions; the other reported events were attributed to the patients' underlying disease, COVID-19, or vasovagal in nature. We found no difference in the likelihood of allergic transfusion reactions between those receiving CCP versus control plasma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43-1.31). Risk of urticaria and/or pruritus increased with a pre-existing diagnosis of asthma (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.16-4.67). We did not observe any CCP-attributed antibody disease enhancement in participants with COVID-19 or increased risk of infection. There were no life-threatening severe transfusion reactions and no patients required hospitalization related to transfusion-associated complications. DISCUSSION: Outpatient plasma administration was safely performed for nearly 1400 participants. CCP is a safe therapeutic option for outpatients at risk of hospitalization from COVID-19.

Secondary bacterial culture of platelets to mitigate transfusion-associated sepsis: A 3-year analysis at a large academic institution.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the United States Food and Drug Administration published its final recommendations to mitigate bacterial contamination of platelets. We sought to evaluate our secondary bacterial culture (SBC) strategy in light of those recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of SBC data (October 2016-2019) at our institution. SBC was performed upon receipt (Day 3 after collection); 5 mL of platelet product was inoculated aseptically into an aerobic bottle and incubated at 35°C for 3 days. For 8 months, a 10-mL inoculum was trialed. No quarantine was applied. All positive cultures underwent Gram staining and repeat culture of the platelet product (if available). A probable true positive was defined as concordant positive culture between the initial and repeat culture. The incidence of probable true- and false-positive cultures were reported descriptively and differences evaluated by sampling volume. RESULTS: Over 3 years, 55 896 platelet products underwent SBC, yielding 30 initial positive results (approx. 1/1863 platelets); 25 (83.3%) signaled within 24 hours of SBC. The rates of probable true positive, false positive, and indeterminate for 5 mL were 0.027% (1/3771), 0.002% (1/45 251) and 0.018% (1/5656), respectively. The respective rates for 10 mL were 0.018% (1/5323), 0.07% (1/1521), and 0%. Seven of eight (87.5%) false-positive SBCs occurred with a 10-mL inoculum. No septic transfusion reactions were reported. CONCLUSION: SBC continues to interdict bacterially contaminated units of platelets. Our findings suggest higher rates of false positivity using large-volume inocula.

Financial impact of alternative approaches to reduce bacterial contamination of platelet transfusions.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial contamination of platelets remains the leading infectious risk from blood transfusion. Pathogen reduction (PR), point-of-release testing (PORt), and secondary bacterial culture (SBC) have been proposed as alternative risk control strategies, but a comprehensive financial comparison has not been conducted. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov-based decision tree was constructed to model the financial and clinical impact of PR, PORt, and SBC, as well as a baseline strategy involving routine testing only. Hospitals were assumed to acquire leukoreduced apheresis platelets on Day 3 after collection, and, in the base case analysis, expiration would occur at the end of Day 5 (PR and SBC) or 7 (PORt). Monte Carlo simulations assessed the direct medical costs for platelet acquisition, testing, transfusion, and possible complications. Input parameters, including test sensitivity and specificity, were drawn from existing literature, and costs (2018 US dollars) were based on a hospital perspective. RESULTS: The total costs per unit acquired by the hospital under the baseline strategy, PR, PORt, and SBC were $651.45, $827.82, $686.33, and $668.50, respectively. All risk-reduction strategies decreased septic transfusion reactions and associated expenses, with the greatest reductions from PR. PR would add $191.09 in per-unit acquisition costs, whereas PORt and SBC would increase per-unit testing costs by $31.79 and $17.26, respectively. Financial outcomes were sensitive to platelet dating; allowing 7-day storage with SBC would lead to a cost savings of $12.41 per transfused unit. Results remained robust in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: All three strategies are viable approaches to reducing bacterially contaminated platelet transfusions, although SBC is likely to be the cheapest overall.

The epidemiology of bacterial culture-positive and septic transfusion reactions at a large tertiary academic center: 2009 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial contamination and associated septic transfusion reactions (STRs) remain the leading infectious risk to the blood supply. We sought to characterize the risk and clinical presentation of blood culture-positive transfusion reactions (BCPTRs) and STRs at our institution. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of all suspected transfusion reactions reported to the transfusion service at a 1000-bed tertiary academic medical center from January 2009 to September 2016. Routine investigation included review of the clinical presentation, Gram stain, and bacterial culture of residual blood from the transfused product or associated blood bag. BCPTRs were defined by the presence of a positive bacterial culture in the blood product and/or recipient. STRs met definitive Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hemovigilance criteria for transfusion-transmitted infection, with definite imputability and concordant bacterial culture of the blood product and recipient. RESULTS: A total of 688,514 blood products were transfused during the study period, 3170 transfusion reactions were reported, and 18 (0.57%) were BCPTRs of which seven (0.22%) were STRs. Fifteen of 18 (83.3%) BCPTRs and six of seven (85.7%) were associated with transfusion of apheresis platelets. Major symptoms and signs of BCPTRs included chills (67%), fever (61%), and nausea and vomiting (50%). Four of seven (57.1%) STRs were classified as severe or life-threatening. CONCLUSION: BCPTRs are rare yet potentially serious. The signs and symptoms of BCPTRs, and associated STRs, are not specific, posing risk of misclassification. Challenges surrounding reporting and case ascertainment underscore the need for laboratory measures to address residual risk of contamination.

Implementation of secondary bacterial culture testing of platelets to mitigate residual risk of septic transfusion reactions.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial contamination of platelets remains a major transfusion-associated risk despite long-standing safety measures in the United States. We evaluated an approach using secondary bacterial culture (SBC) to contend with residual risk of bacterial contamination. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Phased implementation of SBC was initiated in October 2016 for platelets (all apheresis collected) received at our institution from the blood donor center (Day 3 post collection). Platelet products were sampled aseptically (5 mL inoculated into an aerobic bottle [BacT/ALERT BPA, BioMerieux, Inc.]) by the blood bank staff upon receipt, using a sterile connection device and sampling kit. The platelet sample was inoculated into an aerobic blood culture bottle and incubated at 35°C for 3 days. The cost of SBC was calculated on the basis of consumables and labor costs at time of implementation. RESULTS: In the 13 months following implementation (October 6, 2016, to November 30, 2017), 23,044/24,653 (93.47%) platelet products underwent SBC. A total of eight positive cultures were detected (incidence 1 in 2881 platelet products), seven of which were positive within 24 hours of SBC. Coagulase negative Staphyloccus spp. were identified in four cases. Five of the eight cases were probable true positive (repeat reactive) and interdicted (cost per averted case was US$77,935). The remaining three cases were indeterminate. No septic transfusion reactions were reported during the observation period. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the feasibility of SBC of apheresis platelets to mitigate bacterial risk. SBC is lower cost than alternative measures (e.g., pathogen reduction and point-of-release testing) and can be integrated into workflow at hospital transfusion services.

Blood Product Utilization Among Trauma and Nontrauma Massive Transfusion Protocols at an Urban Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-wide massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) primarily designed for trauma patients may lead to excess blood products being prepared for nontrauma patients. This study characterized blood product utilization among distinct trauma and nontrauma MTPs at a large, urban academic medical center. METHODS: A retrospective study of blood product utilization was conducted in patients who required an MTP activation between January 2011 and December 2015 at an urban academic medical center. Trauma MTP containers included 6 red blood cell (RBC) units, 5 plasma units, and 1 unit of apheresis platelets. Nontrauma MTP containers included 6 RBC and 3 plasma units. RESULTS: There were 334 trauma MTP activations, 233 nontrauma MTP activations, and 77 nontrauma MTP activations that subsequently switched to a trauma MTP ("switched activations"). All nontrauma MTP activations were among bleeding patients who did not have a traumatic injury (100% [233/233]). Few patients with a nontrauma activation required ad hoc transfusion of RBC units (1.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.3%-3.7%]) or plasma (3.4% [95% CI, 1.5%-6.7%]), and only 45.5% (95% CI, 39.0%-52.1%) required ad hoc transfusion of apheresis platelets. Compared to trauma and switched activations, nontrauma activations transfused a lower median number of RBC, plasma, and apheresis platelet units (P < .001 for all comparisons). There was also a lower median number of prepared but unused plasma units for nontrauma activations (3; [interquartile range {IQR}, 3-5]) compared to trauma (7; [IQR, 5-10]; P < .001) and switched activations (8; [IQR, 5-11]; P < .001). The median number of unused apheresis platelet units was 1 (IQR, 1-2) for trauma activations and 0 (IQR, 0-1) for switched activations. There was a high proportion of trauma and switched activations in which all of the prepared apheresis platelet units were unused (28.1% [95% CI, 23.4%-33.3%] and 9.1% [95% CI, 3.7%-17.8%], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of initial nontrauma MTP activations did not require a switch to a trauma MTP. Patients remaining under a nontrauma MTP activation were associated with a lower number of transfused and unused plasma and apheresis platelet units. Future studies evaluating the use of hospital-wide nontrauma MTPs are warranted since an MTP designed for nontrauma patient populations may yield a key strategy to optimize blood product utilization in comparison to a universal MTP for both trauma and nontrauma patients.

Outpatient COVID-19 convalescent plasma recipient antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations within a randomized trial.

BACKGROUNDCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) virus-specific antibody levels that translate into recipient posttransfusion antibody levels sufficient to prevent disease progression are not defined.METHODSThis secondary analysis correlated donor and recipient antibody levels to hospitalization risk among unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients within the outpatient, double-blind, randomized clinical trial that compared CCP to control plasma. The majority of COVID-19 CCP arm hospitalizations (15/17, 88%) occurred in this unvaccinated, seronegative subgroup. A functional cutoff to delineate recipient high versus low posttransfusion antibody levels was established by 2 methods: (i) analyzing virus neutralization-equivalent anti-Spike receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G (anti-S-RBD IgG) responses in donors or (ii) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.RESULTSSARS-CoV-2 anti-S-RBD IgG antibody was volume diluted 21.3-fold into posttransfusion seronegative recipients from matched donor units. Virus-specific antibody delivered was approximately 1.2 mg. The high-antibody recipients transfused early (symptom onset within 5 days) had no hospitalizations. A CCP-recipient analysis for antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations found a statistical significant association between early transfusion and high antibodies versus all other CCP recipients (or control plasma), with antibody cutoffs established by both methods-donor-based virus neutralization cutoffs in posttransfusion recipients (0/85 [0%] versus 15/276 [5.6%]; P = 0.03) or ROC-based cutoff (0/94 [0%] versus 15/267 [5.4%]; P = 0.01).CONCLUSIONIn unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients, early transfusion of plasma units in the upper 30% of study donors' antibody levels reduced outpatient hospitalizations. High antibody level plasma units, given early, should be reserved for therapeutic use.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04373460.FUNDINGDepartment of Defense (W911QY2090012); Defense Health Agency; Bloomberg Philanthropies; the State of Maryland; NIH (3R01AI152078-01S1, U24TR001609-S3, 1K23HL151826NIH); the Mental Wellness Foundation; the Moriah Fund; Octapharma; the Healthnetwork Foundation; the Shear Family Foundation; the NorthShore Research Institute; and the Rice Foundation.

Outpatient COVID-19 convalescent plasma recipient antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations within a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) viral specific antibody levels that translate into recipient post-transfusion antibody levels sufficient to prevent disease progression is not defined. METHODS: This secondary analysis correlated donor and recipient antibody levels to hospitalization risk among unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients within the outpatient, double blind, randomized clinical trial that compared CCP to control plasma. The majority of COVID-19 CCP arm hospitalizations (15/17, 88%) occurred in this unvaccinated, seronegative subgroup. A functional cutoff to delineate recipient high versus low post-transfusion antibody levels was established by two methods: 1) analyzing virus neutralization-equivalent anti-S-RBD IgG responses in donors or 2) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 anti-S-RBD IgG antibody was diluted by a factor of 21.3 into post-transfusion seronegative recipients from matched donor units. Viral specific antibody delivered approximated 1.2 mg. The high antibody recipients transfused early (symptom onset within 5 days) had no hospitalizations. A CCP recipient analysis for antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations found a significant association with Fisher's exact test between early and high antibodies versus all other CCP recipients (or control plasma) with antibody cutoffs established by both methods-donor virus neutralization-based cutoff: (0/85; 0% versus 15/276; 5.6%) p=0.03 or ROC based cutoff: (0/94; 0% versus 15/267; 5.4%) p=0.01. CONCLUSION: In unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients, early transfusion of plasma units corresponding to the upper 30% of all study donors reduced outpatient hospitalizations. These high antibody level plasma units, given early, should be reserved for therapeutic use.Trial registration: NCT04373460. FUNDING: Defense Health Agency and others.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Early Outpatient COVID-19 Treatment with High-Titer Convalescent Plasma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of polyclonal high titer convalescent plasma to prevent serious complications of COVID-19 in outpatients with recent onset of illness is uncertain. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 high titer convalescent plasma to placebo control plasma in symptomatic adults ≥18 years positive for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of risk factors for disease progression or vaccine status. Participants with symptom onset within 8 days were enrolled, then transfused within the subsequent day. The measured primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospitalization within 28 days of plasma transfusion. The enrollment period was June 3, 2020 to October 1, 2021. RESULTS: A total of 1225 participants were randomized and 1181 transfused. In the pre-specified modified intention-to-treat analysis that excluded those not transfused, the primary endpoint occurred in 37 of 589 (6.3%) who received placebo control plasma and in 17 of 592 (2.9%) participants who received convalescent plasma (relative risk, 0.46; one-sided 95% upper bound confidence interval 0.733; P=0.004) corresponding to a 54% risk reduction. Examination with a model adjusting for covariates related to the outcome did not change the conclusions. CONCLUSION: Early administration of high titer SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma reduced outpatient hospitalizations by more than 50%. High titer convalescent plasma is an effective early outpatient COVID-19 treatment with the advantages of low cost, wide availability, and rapid resilience to variant emergence from viral genetic drift in the face of a changing pandemic. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.

Blood wastage reduction using Lean Sigma methodology.

BACKGROUND: Red blood cell (RBC) product wastage in hospitals is reported to range from 0.1% to 6.7%. Wastage at our institution averaged 4.4% of 63,000 issued RBC products. Data indicated that approximately 87% of wasted RBC units were either individual units that were out of blood bank for more than 30 minutes (dispensed but not administered) or units packed in transport containers that had temperature indicators affixed to each unit. We hypothesized that Lean Sigma methodology could be used to reduce RBC wastage by 50%. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: An interdisciplinary hospital team (transfusion medicine, nursing, and anesthesiology) used Lean Sigma methodology as a tool to reduce RBC product wastage, with a focus on container wastage, which was determined to yield the largest impact. Using the five-part Lean Sigma process-define, measure, analyze, improve, and control-the team collected baseline wastage data, identified major factors affecting RBC product wastage, and implemented interventions to reduce amount of wastage. RESULTS: Factors identified as contributors to RBC wastage most amenable to improvement were lack of awareness and training of staff ordering and handling RBC products, management of temperature-validated containers, inconsistent interpretation of RBC temperature indicators, and need for accountability when ordering blood products. Overall RBC product wastage decreased from 4.4% to a sustained rate of less than 2%. This reduction decreased the number of RBC units wasted by approximately 4300 per year, savings approximately $800,000 over the 4-year period of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Lean Sigma methodology was an effective tool for reducing RBC wastage in a large academic hospital.