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.).

Race, rituximab, and relapse in TTP.

Immune-mediated thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) is characterized by recurring episodes of thrombotic microangiopathy, causing ischemic organ impairment. Black patients are overrepresented in iTTP cohorts in the United States, but racial disparities in iTTP outcome and response to therapy have not been studied. Using the United States Thrombotic Microangiopathies Consortium iTTP Registry, we evaluated the impact of race on mortality and relapse-free survival (RFS) in confirmed iTTP in the United States from 1995 to 2020. We separately examined the impact of rituximab therapy and presentation with newly diagnosed (de novo) or relapsed iTTP on RFS by race. A total of 645 participants with 1308 iTTP episodes were available for analysis. Acute iTTP mortality did not differ by race. When all episodes of iTTP were included, Black race was associated with shorter RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.60; 95% CI, 1.16-2.21); the addition of rituximab to corticosteroids improved RFS in White (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.18-0.73) but not Black patients (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.31). In de novo iTTP, rituximab delayed relapse, but Black patients had shorter RFS than White patients, regardless of treatment. In relapsed iTTP, rituximab significantly improved RFS in White but not Black patients. Race affects overall relapse risk and response to rituximab in iTTP. Black patients may require closer monitoring, earlier retreatment, and alternative immunosuppression after rituximab treatment. How race, racism, and social determinants of health contribute to the disparity in relapse risk in iTTP deserves further study.

Symptom Duration and Resolution With Early Outpatient Treatment of Convalescent Plasma for Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) reduces hospitalizations among outpatients treated early after symptom onset. It is unknown whether CCP reduces time to symptom resolution among outpatients. METHODS: We evaluated symptom resolution at day 14 by trial arm using an adjusted subdistribution hazard model, with hospitalization as a competing risk. We also assessed the prevalence of symptom clusters at day 14 between treatments. Clusters were defined based on biologic clustering, impact on ability to work, and an algorithm. RESULTS: Among 1070 outpatients followed up after transfusion, 381 of 538 (70.8%) receiving CCP and 381 of 532 (71.6%) receiving control plasma were still symptomatic (P = .78) at day 14. Associations between CCP and symptom resolution by day 14 did not differ significantly from those in controls after adjustment for baseline characteristics (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .62). The most common cluster consisted of cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, and headache and was found in 308 (57.2%) and 325 (61.1%) of CCP and control plasma recipients, respectively (P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of outpatients with early COVID-19, CCP was not associated with faster resolution of symptoms compared with control. Overall, there were no differences by treatment in the prevalence of each symptom or symptom clusters at day 14. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04373460.

Transfusion of ABO-group identical red blood cells following uncrossmatched transfusion does not lead to higher mortality in civilian trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Questions persist about the safety of switching non-group O recipients of group O uncrossmatched red blood cells (RBC) or low titer group O whole blood (LTOWB) to ABO-identical RBCs during their resuscitation. METHODS: The database of an earlier nine-center study of transfusing incompatible plasma to trauma patients was reanalyzed. The patients were divided into three groups based on 24-h RBC transfusion: (1) group O patients who received group O RBC/LTOWB units (control group, n = 1203), (2) non-group O recipients who received only group O units (n = 646), (3) non-group O recipients who received at least one unit of group O and non-group O units (n = 562). Fixed marginal effect of receipt of non-O RBC units on 6- and 24-h and 30-day mortality was calculated. RESULTS: The non-O patients who received only group O RBCs received fewer RBC/LTOWB units and had slightly but significantly lower injury severity score compared to control group; non-group O patients who received both group O and non-O units received significantly more RBC/LTOWB units and had a slightly but significantly higher injury severity score compared to control group. In the multivariate analysis, the non-O patients who received only group O RBCs had significantly higher mortality at 6-h compared to the controls; the non-group O recipients of O and non-O RBCs did not demonstrate higher mortality. At 24-h and 30-days, there were no differences in survival between the groups. CONCLUSION: Providing non-group O RBCs to non-group O trauma patients who also received group O RBC units is not associated with higher mortality.

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.

Current advances in 2022: A critical review of selected topics by the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee.

BACKGROUND: The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee (CTMC) composes a summary of new and important advances in transfusion medicine (TM) on an annual basis. Since 2018, this has been assembled into a manuscript and published in Transfusion. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: CTMC members selected original manuscripts relevant to TM that were published electronically and/or in print during calendar year 2022. Papers were selected based on perceived importance and/or originality. References for selected papers were made available to CTMC members to provide feedback. Members were also encouraged to identify papers that may have been omitted initially. They then worked in groups of two to three to write a summary for each new publication within their broader topic. Each topic summary was then reviewed and edited by two separate committee members. The final manuscript was assembled by the first and senior authors. While this review is extensive, it is not a systematic review and some publications considered important by readers may have been excluded. RESULTS: For calendar year 2022, summaries of key publications were assembled for the following broader topics within TM: blood component therapy; infectious diseases, blood donor testing, and collections; patient blood management; immunohematology and genomics; hemostasis; hemoglobinopathies; apheresis and cell therapy; pediatrics; and health care disparities, diversity, equity, and inclusion. DISCUSSION: This Committee Report reviews and summarizes important publications and advances in TM published during calendar year 2022, and maybe a useful educational tool.

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.

Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB): COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma.

DESCRIPTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP. METHODS: These guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21 916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations. RECOMMENDATION 1 (OUTPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2 (INPATIENT): The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. RECOMMENDATION 3 (INPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4 (INPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 5 (PROPHYLAXIS): The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE STATEMENT: CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.

Red Blood Cell Transfusion: 2023 AABB International Guidelines.

Importance: Red blood cell transfusion is a common medical intervention with benefits and harms. Objective: To provide recommendations for use of red blood cell transfusion in adults and children. Evidence Review: Standards for trustworthy guidelines were followed, including using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods, managing conflicts of interest, and making values and preferences explicit. Evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials was reviewed. Findings: For adults, 45 randomized controlled trials with 20 599 participants compared restrictive hemoglobin-based transfusion thresholds, typically 7 to 8 g/dL, with liberal transfusion thresholds of 9 to 10 g/dL. For pediatric patients, 7 randomized controlled trials with 2730 participants compared a variety of restrictive and liberal transfusion thresholds. For most patient populations, results provided moderate quality evidence that restrictive transfusion thresholds did not adversely affect patient-important outcomes. Recommendation 1: for hospitalized adult patients who are hemodynamically stable, the international panel recommends a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence). In accordance with the restrictive strategy threshold used in most trials, clinicians may choose a threshold of 7.5 g/dL for patients undergoing cardiac surgery and 8 g/dL for those undergoing orthopedic surgery or those with preexisting cardiovascular disease. Recommendation 2: for hospitalized adult patients with hematologic and oncologic disorders, the panel suggests a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (conditional recommendations, low certainty evidence). Recommendation 3: for critically ill children and those at risk of critical illness who are hemodynamically stable and without a hemoglobinopathy, cyanotic cardiac condition, or severe hypoxemia, the international panel recommends a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence). Recommendation 4: for hemodynamically stable children with congenital heart disease, the international panel suggests a transfusion threshold that is based on the cardiac abnormality and stage of surgical repair: 7 g/dL (biventricular repair), 9 g/dL (single-ventricle palliation), or 7 to 9 g/dL (uncorrected congenital heart disease) (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence). Conclusions and Relevance: It is good practice to consider overall clinical context and alternative therapies to transfusion when making transfusion decisions about an individual patient.

Vitamin K antagonist reversal strategies: Systematic review and network meta-analysis from the AABB.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation requires urgent reversal in cases of life-threatening bleeding or invasive procedures. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Network meta-analysis for comparing the safety and efficacy of warfarin reversal strategies including plasma and prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs). RESULTS: Seven studies including 594 subjects using reversal agents plasma, 3-factor-PCC (Uman Complex and Konyne), and 4-factor-PCC (Beriplex/KCentra, Octaplex, and Cofact) met inclusion criteria. Compared with plasma, patients receiving Cofact probably have a higher rate of international normalized ratio (INR) correction (risk difference [RD] 499 more per 1000 patients, 95% confidence interval [CI], 176-761, low certainty[LC]); higher reversal of bleeding (323 more per 1000 patients, 11-344 more, LC); and fewer transfusion requirements (0.96 fewer units, 1.65-0.27 fewer, LC). Patients receiving Beriplex/KCentra probably have a higher rate of INR correction (476 more per 1000 patients, 332-609 more, LC); higher reversal of bleeding (127 more per 1000 patients, 43 fewer to 236 more); and similar transfusion requirements (0.01 fewer units, 0.31 fewer to 0.28 more, high/moderate certainty). Patients receiving Octaplex probably have a higher rate of INR correction (RD 579 more per 1000 patients, 189-825 more, LC). CONCLUSIONS: PCCs probably provide an advantage in INR reversal compared to plasma. There was no added risk of adverse events with PCCs.

Rate of D-alloimmunization in trauma does not depend on the number of RhD-positive units transfused: The BEST collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates the life-saving benefits of early blood product transfusion in severe trauma resuscitation. Many of these products will be RhD-positive, so understanding the D-alloimmunization rate is important. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective study whereby injured RhD-negative patients between 18-50 years of age who received at least one unit of RhD-positive red blood cells (RBC) or low titer group O whole blood (LTOWB) during their resuscitation between 1 January, 2010 through 31 December, 2019 were identified. If an antibody detection test was performed ≥14 days after the index RhD-positive transfusion then basic demographic information was collected, including whether the patient became D-alloimmunized. The overall D-alloimmunization rate, and the rate stratified by the number of units transfused, were calculated. RESULTS: Data were collected from nine institutions. Five institutions reported fewer than 10 eligible patients each and were excluded. From the remaining four institutions, all from the USA, there were 235 eligible patients; 77 (random effects estimate: 32.7%; 95% CI: 19.1-50.1%) became D-alloimmunized. Three of the institutions reported D-alloimmunization rates ≥38.6%, while the remaining institution's rate was 12.2%. In both random and fixed-effects models, the rate of D-alloimmunization was not significantly different between those who received one RhD-positive unit and those who received multiple RhD-positive units. CONCLUSION: In this large, multicenter study of injured patients, the overall rate of D-alloimmunization fell within the range previously reported. The rate of D-alloimmunization did not increase as the number of transfused RhD-positive units increased. These data can help to inform RhD type selection decisions.

Current advances in transfusion medicine 2021: A critical review of selected topics by the AABB Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee.

BACKGROUND: Each year the AABB Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee (CTMC) procures a synopsis highlighting new, important, and clinically relevant studies in the field of transfusion medicine (TM). This has been made available as a publication in Transfusion since 2018. METHODS: CTMC members reviewed and identified original manuscripts covering TM-related topics published electronically (ahead-of-print) or in print from December 2020 to December 2021. Selection of publications was discussed at committee meetings and chosen based on perceived relevance and originality. Next, committee members worked in pairs to create a synopsis of each topic, which was then reviewed by additional committee members. The first and senior authors assembled the final manuscript. Although this synopsis is extensive, it is not exhaustive, and some articles may have been excluded or missed. RESULTS: The following topics are included: blood products; convalescent plasma; donor collections and testing; hemoglobinopathies; immunohematology and genomics; hemostasis; patient blood management; pediatrics; therapeutic apheresis; and cell therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This synopsis highlights and summarizes recent key developments in TM and may be useful for educational purposes.

How do I implement an outpatient program for the administration of convalescent plasma for COVID-19?

Convalescent plasma, collected from donors who have recovered from a pathogen of interest, has been used to treat infectious diseases, particularly in times of outbreak, when alternative therapies were unavailable. The COVID-19 pandemic revived interest in the use of convalescent plasma. Large observational studies and clinical trials that were executed during the pandemic provided insight into how to use convalescent plasma, whereby high levels of antibodies against the pathogen of interest and administration early within the time course of the disease are critical for optimal therapeutic effect. Several studies have shown outpatient administration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to be both safe and effective, preventing clinical progression in patients when administered within the first week of COVID-19. The United States Food and Drug Administration expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow for the administration of CCP in an outpatient setting in December 2021, at least for immunocompromised patients or those on immunosuppressive therapy. Outpatient transfusion of CCP and infusion of monoclonal antibody therapies for a highly transmissible infectious disease introduces nuanced challenges related to infection prevention. Drawing on our experiences with the clinical and research use of CCP, we describe the logistical considerations and workflow spanning procurement of qualified products, infrastructure, staffing, transfusion, and associated management of adverse events. The purpose of this description is to facilitate the efforts of others intent on establishing outpatient transfusion programs for CCP and other antibody-based therapies.

Anti-D alloimmunization in Rh(D) negative adults with severe traumatic injury.

INTRODUCTION: Widely varying rates of alloimmunization associated with transfusing uncrossmatched RBC products to trauma patients as part of hemostatic resuscitation have been reported. We characterized the rates of RBC alloimmunization in our severely injured Rh(D) negative trauma population who received uncrossmatched Rh(D) positive RBC products. METHODS: In a 10-year retrospective analysis to assess Rh(D) alloimmunization risks, Rh(D) negative adult trauma patients initially requiring uncrossmatched group O Rh(D) positive RBC products with either RBC units or low titer group O whole blood as part of massive transfusion protocol (MTP) activation were identified. Only those Rh(D) negative patients whose initial antibody screenings were negative were included. Duration of serologic follow-up from date of MTP activation to either date of anti-D detection or most recent negative antibody screening was calculated. RESULTS: There were 129 eligible Rh(D) negative trauma patients identified. Median injury severity score was 25. Anti-D was detected in 10 (7.8%) patients after a median of 161.5 days; the median duration of serologic follow-up in those who did not have anti-D detected was 220 days. Patients who had anti-D detected were less severely injured and received fewer Rh(D) positive RBC products versus those who did not. DISCUSSION: In our severely injured adult trauma patients with MTP activation requiring uncrossmatched group O Rh(D) positive RBC products, the rate of anti-D detection was low. Additional studies are necessary to determine generalizability of these findings and fully characterize alloimmunization risks in trauma patients with varying extents of injury.

Current advances in transfusion medicine 2020: A critical review of selected topics by the AABB Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee.

BACKGROUND: The AABB Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee (CTMC) compiles an annual synopsis of the published literature covering important developments in the field of transfusion medicine (TM), which has been made available as a manuscript published in Transfusion since 2018. METHODS: CTMC committee members reviewed original manuscripts including TM-related topics published electronically (ahead) or in print from December 2019 to December 2020. The selection of topics and manuscripts was discussed at committee meetings and chosen based on relevance and originality. Next, committee members worked in pairs to create a synopsis of each topic, which was then reviewed by two additional committee members. The first and senior authors of this manuscript assembled the final manuscript. Although this synopsis is extensive, it is not exhaustive, and some papers may have been excluded or missed. RESULTS: The following topics are included: COVID-19 effects on the blood supply and regulatory landscape, COVID convalescent plasma, adult transfusion practices, whole blood, molecular immunohematology, pediatric TM, cellular therapy, and apheresis medicine. CONCLUSIONS: This synopsis provides easy access to relevant topics and may be useful as an educational tool.

Use of therapeutic plasma exchange for pediatric neurological diseases.

Therapeutic plasma exchange is used to treat neurological diseases in the pediatric population. Since its first use in pediatric patients with hepatic coma in the form of manual whole blood exchange, therapeutic plasma exchange has been increasingly used to treat these disorders of the nervous system. This expansion is a result of improved techniques and apheresis instruments suitable for small children, as well as the recognition of its applicability to many diseases in the pediatric population. This review provides a historical overview of the use of therapeutic apheresis in children and highlights the most common applications for therapeutic plasma exchange to treat neurological disorders in children.

Mathematical modeling of the impact of recirculation on exchange kinetics in tandem extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and therapeutic plasma exchange.

Vascular access connection configurations during tandem extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) may impact exchange kinetics. In these tandem procedures, typically the TPE inlet line is proximal to the TPE return line with respect to blood flow in the ECMO device, maximizing the opportunity for replacement fluid homogenization within the ECMO circuit. However, if TPE inlet and return line connections are switched, recirculation-a phenomenon in which replacement fluid leaving the TPE return line is prematurely drawn into the TPE inlet line prior to satisfactory homogenization within the ECMO circuit-will occur. Such recirculation could diminish TPE efficacy in patients on ECMO and mitigate therapeutic benefits. Using a mathematical model of recirculation in tandem ECMO and TPE, we demonstrate that the predicted impact of recirculation is negligible and vascular access connection positioning does not appear to be a point of clinical concern with regard to TPE kinetics.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Neutralizing Antibody Titers in Convalescent Plasma and Recipients in New Mexico: An Open Treatment Study in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma (CP) is a potentially important therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, knowledge regarding neutralizing antibody (NAb) titers in donor plasma and their impact in patients with acute COVID-19 remains largely undetermined. We measured NAb titers in CP and in patients with acute COVID-19 before and after transfusion through the traditional Food and Drug Administration investigational new drug pathway. METHODS: We performed a single-arm interventional trial measuring NAb and total antibody titers before and after CP transfusion over a 14-day period in hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. RESULTS: NAb titers in the donor CP units were low (<1:40 to 1:160) and had no effect on recipient neutralizing activity 1 day after transfusion. NAb titers were detected in 6 of 12 patients on enrollment and in 11 of 12 at ≥2 time points. Average titers peaked on day 7 and declined toward day 14 (P = .004). Nab titers and immunoglobulin G levels were correlated in donor plasma units (ρ = 0.938; P < .001) and in the cumulative patient measures (ρ = 0.781; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: CP infusion did not alter recipient NAb titers. Prescreening of CP may be necessary for selecting donors with high titers of neutralizing activity for infusion into patients with COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04434131.

Therapeutic plasma exchange taper does not decrease exacerbations in immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite rapid and intensive treatments with therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) and immunosuppression, immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) patients are at risk of disease exacerbation, i.e., early recurrence of TTP within 30 days of achieving treatment response. TPE taper, a practice of performing additional TPE procedures after achieving treatment response, is commonly performed for decreasing exacerbations, although no evidence supports this practice. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this prospective observational investigation over four years, our center switched its standard of care for treating all TTP patients from not performing TPE taper after achieving treatment response (i.e., no-taper cohort) to performance of TPE taper (i.e., yes-taper cohort) to characterize impacts on exacerbations. Continuous and categorical data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney, Fisher's exact, and log-rank tests; significance was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: The two cohorts were well matched and had no significant differences in demographics, presentation laboratory values, or TTP history (p > 0.05 for all). The yes-taper cohort of 26 patients with 29 consecutive episodes did not have a significantly different exacerbation rate from the no-taper cohort of 24 patients with 27 consecutive episodes (exacerbation rates of 37.9% vs. 33.3%, respectively; p = 0.78); however, treatment-related complications directly attributed to the TPE procedures, blood products, or central venous catheters were significantly greater in the yes-taper cohort (nine vs. one events, respectively; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Since TPE taper did not reduce exacerbations in our TTP patients, we no longer advocate for TPE taper and have reverted to our original standard of care.

Von Willebrand factor as a thrombotic and inflammatory mediator in critical illness.

The endothelial exocytosis of high-molecular-weight multimeric von Willebrand factor (vWF) may occur in critical illness states, including trauma and sepsis, leading to the sustained elevation and altered composition of plasma vWF. These critical illnesses involve the common process of sympathoadrenal activation and loss of the endothelial glycocalyx. As a prothrombotic and proinflammatory molecule that interacts with the endothelium, the alterations exhibited by vWF in critical illness have been implicated in the development and damaging effects of downstream pathologies, such as disseminated intravascular coagulation and systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Given the role of vWF in these pathologies, there has been a recent push to further understand how the molecule may be involved in the pathophysiology of related diseases, such as trauma-induced coagulopathy and acute renal injury, which are also known to develop secondarily to critical illness states. Elucidation of the role of vWF across the broader spectrum of generalized pathologies may provide a basis for the development of novel preventative and restorative measures, while also bolstering the scaffold of more widely used treatments, such as the administration of plasma-containing blood products.