Incorporating the entity of under-transfusion into hemovigilance monitoring: Documenting cases due to lack of inventory.

BACKGROUND: Under-transfusion is an underreported entity within most hospitals and hemovigilance systems. While critical blood shortages are being reported more frequently, without incident codes to document instances of under-transfusion due to lack of inventory, estimating its impact on patient care as it relates to hemotherapy (HT) has hampered our ability to assess and inform strategic initiatives to combat inventory issues as well as prepare for future blood supply threats. STUDY DESIGN AND METHOD: An 11-member working group of the AABB (Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies) Hemovigilance Committee was formed in October 2020 to study the topic of under-transfusion including its potential causes and clinical expressions. The group was also charged with proposing simple definition/incident codes to be used by hemovigilance systems to document such instances. RESULTS: The working group proposed four simple incident codes under the new process code-No Blood (NB)-that can be used by hemovigilance systems to appropriately document instances of under-transfusion due to lack of inventory. The codes were described as: (1) NB 01-Inventory less than usual level due to supplier shortage; (2) NB 02-Demand for blood product exceeding usual inventory levels; (3) NB 03-Substitution with incompatible/inappropriate units; and (4) NB 04-Suboptimal dose/no transfusion given. CONCLUSION: The adoption of these codes within hemovigilance systems globally would assist in recognition and reporting instances of under-transfusion due to inventory, thus supporting development of better collection strategies, inventory management techniques as well as effective policies to improve blood safety and availability.

A randomized double-blind controlled trial of convalescent plasma in adults with severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUNDAlthough convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), data from randomized controlled trials that support its efficacy are limited.METHODSWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial among adults hospitalized with severe and critical COVID-19 at 5 sites in New York City (USA) and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive a single transfusion of either convalescent plasma or normal control plasma. The primary outcome was clinical status at 28 days following randomization, measured using an ordinal scale and analyzed using a proportional odds model in the intention-to-treat population.RESULTSOf 223 participants enrolled, 150 were randomized to receive convalescent plasma and 73 to receive normal control plasma. At 28 days, no significant improvement in the clinical scale was observed in participants randomized to convalescent plasma (OR 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-2.68, P = 0.180). However, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in participants randomized to convalescent plasma versus control plasma (19/150 [12.6%] versus 18/73 [24.6%], OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.91, P = 0.034). The median titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody in infused convalescent plasma units was 1:160 (IQR 1:80-1:320). In a subset of nasopharyngeal swab samples from Brazil that underwent genomic sequencing, no evidence of neutralization-escape mutants was detected.CONCLUSIONIn adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19, use of convalescent plasma was not associated with significant improvement in day 28 clinical status. However, convalescent plasma was associated with significantly improved survival. A possible explanation is that survivors remained hospitalized at their baseline clinical status.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04359810.FUNDINGAmazon Foundation, Skoll Foundation.

Correction to: Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn due to Rh(D) incompatibility: A preventable disease that still produces significant morbidity and mortality in children.

In the mid-20th century, Hemolytic Disease of the Fetus and Newborn, caused by maternal alloimmunization to the Rh(D) blood group antigen expressed by fetal red blood cells (i.e., "Rh disease"), was a major cause of fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. However, with the regulatory approval, in 1968, of IgG anti-Rh(D) immunoprophylaxis to prevent maternal sensitization, the prospect of eradicating Rh disease was at hand. Indeed, the combination of antenatal and post-partum immunoprophylaxis is ~99% effective at preventing maternal sensitization to Rh(D). To investigate global compliance with this therapeutic intervention, we used an epidemiological approach to estimate the current annual number of pregnancies worldwide involving an Rh(D)-negative mother and an Rh(D)-positive fetus. The annual number of doses of anti-Rh(D) IgG required for successful immunoprophylaxis for these cases was then calculated and compared with an estimate of the annual number of doses of anti-Rh(D) produced and provided worldwide. Our results suggest that ~50% of the women around the world who require this type of immunoprophylaxis do not receive it, presumably due to a lack of awareness, availability, and/or affordability, thereby putting hundreds of thousands of fetuses and neonates at risk for Rh disease each year. The global failure to provide this generally acknowledged standard-of-care to prevent Rh disease, even 50 years after its availability, contributes to an enormous, continuing burden of fetal and neonatal disease and provides a critically important challenge to the international health care system.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in hospitalized adults with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a prospective, single-center, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial that is blinded to participants and clinical outcome assessor. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants include adults (≥ 18 years) with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR test of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab within 14 days of randomization, evidence of infiltrates on chest radiography, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤ 94% on room air, and/or need for supplemental oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation, who are willing and able to provide written informed consent prior to performing study procedures or who have a legally authorized representative available to do so. Exclusion criteria include participation in another clinical trial of anti-viral agent(s)* for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), receipt of any anti-viral agent(s)* with possible activity against SARS-CoV-2 <24 hours prior to plasma infusion, mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]) for ≥ 5 days, severe multi-organ failure, history of allergic reactions to transfused blood products per NHSN/CDC criteria, known IgA deficiency, and pregnancy. Included participants will be hospitalized at the time of randomization and plasma infusion. *Use of remdesivir as treatment for COVID-19 is permitted. The study will be undertaken at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, USA. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The investigational treatment is anti-SARS-CoV-2 human convalescent plasma. To procure the investigational treatment, volunteers who recovered from COVID-19 will undergo testing to confirm the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody to the spike trimer at a 1:400 dilution. Donors will also be screened for transfusion-transmitted infections (e.g. HIV, HBV, HCV, WNV, HTLV-I/II, T. cruzi, ZIKV). If donors have experienced COVID-19 symptoms within 28 days, they will be screened with a nasopharyngeal swab to confirm they are SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative. Plasma will be collected using standard apheresis technology by the New York Blood Center. Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive one unit (200 - 250 mL) of anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus one unit (200 - 250 mL) of the earliest available control plasma. The control plasma cannot be tested for presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prior to the transfusion, but will be tested for anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibody after the transfusion to allow for a retrospective per-protocol analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement. This is defined as time from randomization to either discharge from the hospital or improvement by one point on the following seven-point ordinal scale, whichever occurs first. 1. Not hospitalized with resumption of normal activities 2. Not hospitalized, but unable to resume normal activities 3. Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen 4. Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen 5. Hospitalized, requiring high-flow oxygen therapy or non-invasive mechanical ventilation 6. Hospitalized, requiring ECMO, invasive mechanical ventilation, or both 7. Death This scale, designed to assess clinical status over time, was based on that recommended by the World Health Organization for use in determining efficacy end-points in clinical trials in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A recent clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of lopinavir- ritonavir for patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 used a similar ordinal scale, as have recent clinical trials of novel therapeutics for severe influenza, including a post-hoc analysis of a trial evaluating immune plasma. The primary safety endpoints are cumulative incidence of grade 3 and 4 adverse events and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events during the study period. RANDOMIZATION: Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus control plasma using a web-based randomization platform. Treatment assignments will be generated using randomly permuted blocks of different sizes to minimize imbalance while also minimizing predictability. BLINDING (MASKING): The study participants and the clinicians who will evaluate post-treatment outcomes will be blinded to group assignment. The blood bank and the clinical research team will not be blinded to group assignment. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): We plan to enroll 129 participants, with 86 in the anti-SARS-CoV-2 arm, and 43 in the control arm. Among the participants, we expect ~70% or n = 72 will achieve clinical improvement. This will yield an 80% power for a one-sided Wald test at 0.15 level of significance under the proportional hazards model with a hazard ratio of 1.5. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol AAAS9924, Version 17APR2020, 4/17/2020 Start of recruitment: April 20, 2020 Recruitment is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04359810 Date of trial registration: April 24, 2020 Retrospectively registered FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Correction to: Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Center-related Bias in MELD Scores Within a Liver Transplant UNOS Region: A Call for Standardization.

BACKGROUND: Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score-based liver transplant allocation was implemented as a fair and objective measure to prioritize patients based upon disease severity. Accuracy and reproducibility of MELD is an essential assumption to ensure fairness in organ access. We hypothesized that variability in laboratory methodology between centers could impact allocation scores for individuals on the transplant waiting list. METHODS: Aliquots of 30 patient serum samples were analyzed for creatinine, bilirubin, and sodium in all transplant centers within United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) region 9. Descriptive statistics, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and linear mixed-effects regression were used to determine the relationship between center, bilirubin, and calculated MELD-sodium (MELD-Na) score. RESULTS: The mean MELD-Na score per sample ranged from 14 to 38. The mean range in MELD-Na per sample was 3 points, but 30% of samples had a range of 4-6 points. Correlation plots and intraclass correlation coefficient analysis confirmed bilirubin interfered with creatinine, with worsening agreement in creatinine at high bilirubin levels. Center and bilirubin were independently associated with creatinine reported in mixed-effects models. Unbiased hierarchical clustering suggested that samples from specific centers have consistently higher creatinine and MELD-Na values. CONCLUSIONS: Despite implementation of creatinine standardization, centers within a single UNOS region report clinically significant differences in MELD-Na on an identical sample, with differences of up to 6 points in high MELD-Na patients. The bias in MELD-Na scores based upon center choice within a region should be addressed in the current efforts to eliminate disparities in liver transplant access.

Safety incident reports associated with blood transfusions.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety remains a critical issue in health care. Adverse events related to blood transfusion constitute a threat to patient safety. The aim of this study is to compare and contrast reporting trends of patient safety events that occur during the transfusion of blood components in pediatric and adult hospital care settings. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a multicenter analysis of reported patient safety incidents occurring during the administration of blood components for four children's and 21 adult hospitals from January 2010 through September 2017. Denominators were pediatric or adult transfusions per year for a subset of two pediatric and two adult hospitals able to provide denominators for the complete reporting period. Rates were calculated on the subset of four hospitals per 100,000 components transfused with Pearson's chi square for comparison (p < 0.05 as significant). RESULTS: There were 1902 reports for an estimated 1.1 million transfusions: 358 reports from pediatric hospitals and 1544 reports from adult hospitals. From hospitals able to provide denominator data; there were 192 reports for 128,560 pediatric transfusions and 183 reports for 377,563 adult transfusions. The reporting rate per 100,000 components from these four hospitals was 149 for pediatric and 48 for adult reports (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates the continued need for transfusion safety practices. The type of incident reports differed in the pediatric setting compared to the adult setting. Understanding patient safety event reporting trends related to blood transfusion will help target hemovigilance education and interventions to the appropriate patient populations.

Provider trends in paediatric and adult transfusion reaction reporting.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Passive transfusion reaction reporting systems fail to capture a significant number of reactions, and no data exist on provider reporting trends. The aim of this study was to describe transfusion reaction reporting patterns by adult and paediatric providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a multihospital study on transfusion reaction reporting over a 7-year period. Reports were categorized according to transfusion location and assigned to either a transfusion reaction or nonreaction group according to Centers for Disease Control imputability guidelines. Included in the reaction group (RXN) were definite, probable or possible reaction categories; with the remainder assigned as nonreactions (NORXN). Rates were calculated per 100,000 components transfused using chi-square comparison. RESULTS: There were 1092 reports generated from 363 437 transfusions; 230 reports from 69 311 paediatric and 862 reports from 294 126 adult treatment areas. The reporting rate per 100 000 components transfused was 332 for paediatric and 293 for adult (P = 0·09). The per 100 000 components transfused rates were as follows: 237 for paediatric and 169 for adult (P < 0·01) in the RXN group; with 95 paediatric and 124 adult rates in the NORXN group (P = 0·04). CONCLUSION: The total number of reports generated by paediatric and adult providers was not significantly different, suggesting that both provider groups engage the passive reporting system equally. However, paediatric providers reported more true reactions compared to adult providers. Robust hemovigilance systems will further the understanding of these trends and may aid in the development of targeted provider education programmes.

Analysis of pediatric adverse reactions to transfusions.

BACKGROUND: Children are known to be physiologically and biochemically different from adults. However, there are no multi-institutional studies examining the differences in the frequency, type, and severity of transfusion reactions in pediatric versus adult patients. This study aims to characterize differences between pediatric and adult patients regarding adverse responses to transfusions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a retrospective data analysis of nine children's hospitals and 35 adult hospitals from January 2009 through December 2015. Included were pediatric and adult patients who had a reported reaction to transfusion of any blood component. Rates are reported as per 100,000 transfusions for comparison between pediatric and adult patients. RESULTS: Pediatric patients had an overall higher reaction rate compared to adults: 538 versus 252 per 100,000 transfusions, notably higher for red blood cell (577 vs. 278 per 100,000; p < 0.001) and platelet (833 vs. 358 per 100,000; p < 0.001) transfusions. Statistically higher rates of allergic reactions, febrile nonhemolytic reactions, and acute hemolytic reactions were observed in pediatric patients. Adults had a higher rate of delayed serologic transfusion reactions, delayed hemolytic transfusion reactions, and transfusion-associated circulatory overload. CONCLUSION: Pediatric patients had double the rate of transfusion reactions compared to adults. The nationally reported data on reaction rates are consistent with this study's findings in adults but much lower than the observed rates for pediatric patients. Future studies are needed to address the differences in reaction rates, particularly in allergic and febrile reactions, and to further address blood transfusion practices in the pediatric patient population.

The Impact of an Electronic Ordering System on Blood Bank Specimen Rejection Rates.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact that an electronic ordering system has on the rate of rejection of blood type and screen testing samples and the impact on the number of ABO blood-type discrepancies over a 4-year period. METHODS: An electronic ordering system was implemented in May 2011. Rejection rates along with reasons for rejection were tracked between January 2010 and December 2013. RESULTS: A total of 40,104 blood samples were received during this period, of which 706 (1.8%) were rejected for the following reasons: 382 (54.0%) unsigned samples, 235 (33.0%) mislabeled samples, 57 (8.0%) unsigned requisitions, 18 (2.5%) incorrect tubes, and 14 (1.9%) ABO discrepancies. Of the samples, 2.5% were rejected in the year prior to implementing the electronic ordering system compared with 1.2% in the year following implementation ( P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that implementation of an electronic ordering system significantly decreased the rate of blood sample rejection.

G6PD Deficiency in an HIV Clinic Setting in the Dominican Republic.

Because human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients receive prophylaxis with oxidative drugs, those with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency may experience hemolysis. However, G6PD deficiency has not been studied in the Dominican Republic, where many individuals have African ancestry. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of G6PD deficiency in Dominican HIV-infected patients and to attempt to develop a cost-effective algorithm for identifying such individuals. To this end, histories, chart reviews, and G6PD testing were performed for 238 consecutive HIV-infected adult clinic patients. The overall prevalence of G6PD deficiency (8.8%) was similar in males (9.3%) and females (8.5%), and higher in Haitians (18%) than Dominicans (6.4%; P = 0.01). By logistic regression, three clinical variables predicted G6PD status: maternal country of birth (P = 0.01) and a history of hemolysis (P = 0.01) or severe anemia (P = 0.03). Using these criteria, an algorithm was developed, in which a patient subset was identified that would benefit most from G6PD screening, yielding a sensitivity of 94.7% and a specificity of 97.2%, increasing the pretest probability (8.8-15.1%), and halving the number of patients needing testing. This algorithm may provide a cost-effective strategy for improving care in resource-limited settings.

How we use WinRho in patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura.

Primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an autoimmune disease that affects children and adults. WinRho SDF is a D immune globulin product that is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of ITP in D+ pediatric and adult patients. WinRho is a plasma-derived biologic product dispensed from blood banks. Transfusion medicine physicians serve as a resource to health care providers regarding blood component and derivative usage and, as such, should be familiar with the use of WinRho for ITP, including the dosage, administration, and contraindications. This report details the transfusion medicine consultation practice and guidelines at a tertiary care academic medical center for the usage of WinRho SDF in patients with ITP.

Clinical characteristics of patients who test positive for Clostridium difficile by repeat PCR.

The high sensitivity of PCR assays for diagnosing Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has greatly reduced the need for repeat testing after a negative result. Nevertheless, a small subset of patients do test positive within 7 days of a negative test. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics of these patients to determine when repeat testing may be appropriate. The results of all Xpert C. difficile PCR (Cepheid, Sunnyvale CA) tests performed in the clinical microbiology laboratory at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center (NYPH/CUMC) from 1 May 2011 through 6 September 2013, were reviewed. A retrospective case-control study was performed, comparing patients who tested positive within 7 days of a negative test result to a random selection of 50 controls who tested negative within 7 days of a negative test result. During the study period, a total of 14,875 tests were performed, of which 1,066 were repeat tests (7.2%). Eleven of these repeat tests results were positive (1.0%). The only risk factor independently associated with repeat testing positive was history of a prior CDI (odds ratio [OR], 19.6 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 4.0 to 19.5], P < 0.001). We found that patients who test positive for C. difficile by PCR within 7 days of a negative test are more likely to have a history of CDI than are patients who test negative with repeat PCR. This finding may be due to the high rate of disease relapse or the increased likelihood of empirical therapy leading to false-negative results in these patients.

Analytical and clinical performance of the epoc blood analysis system: experience at a large tertiary academic medical center.

OBJECTIVES: To describe validation and performance of epoc, a blood gas analysis point-of-care system, in a live clinical setting. METHODS: Data were collected for 156 epoc systems over 12 months. Preimplementation precision and correlation studies and postimplementation quality assurance data were collected, including test card, reader, and personal data assistant (PDA) failure rates. RESULTS: The coefficient of variation was clinically acceptable for all analytes. Correlation studies yielded an R(2) from 0.901 (for sodium) to 0.994 (for potassium) with the Nova analyzer and from 0.961 (sodium) to 0.991 (glucose) with the i-STAT. Average test card failure rate was 13%. Of the PDA/reader units, 55% needed repair within 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The analytical performance showed high precision and good correlation with the Nova and i-STAT platforms. Test card and instrument failure rates were higher than that of the i-STAT system.

Determination of turnaround time in the clinical laboratory: "accessioning-to-result" time does not always accurately reflect laboratory performance.

Laboratories often focus on computer-generated components of turnaround time (TAT) reports that capture time from sample accessioning to reporting of results, and use this indicator to determine performance. This study assesses limitations of "accessioning-to-results" times and details ways in which to evaluate laboratory-controlled TAT. Samples were sent via pneumatic tube and times from arrival to accessioning were determined. Staffing was increased and the delay between sample arrival and accessioning was measured again. Significant delays were seen between specimen arrival and accessioning, which were not captured with computer-generated TAT reports. When TAT was calculated to include these delays, the TAT goal was not achieved. Increasing the number of employees significantly decreased delays. Laboratories must ensure that TAT reports encompass all laboratory-controlled parts of the testing processes. Analysis of causes for discrepancies between computer reports and clinician perceptions, combined with targeted measurements and well-designed interventions, can decrease TAT and improve service.

Granulocyte transfusion therapy in pediatric patients after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a 5-year single tertiary care center experience.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte transfusion (GTx) has been used in neutropenic patients to treat infections; however, there are few studies that document its efficacy, especially in pediatric patients after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). We, therefore, reviewed the use of GTx in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational analysis was performed on all pediatric HSCT patients between January 2005 and January 2010 who met our institution's criteria for GTx and received more than 1 GTx. Unstimulated granulocyte donors were used until June 2007, followed by dexamethasone-stimulated donors thereafter. Outcomes were infection clearance, safety profile of GTx, and 30-day survival. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three GTxs were administered to 16 pediatric HSCT patients. Indications for GTx: bacterial (69%), fungal (19%), and combined infection (12%). Concurrent infections, mostly bacterial, developed in 60% patients. One adverse reaction (pulmonary toxicity) was reported. The absolute neutrophil count of the stimulated products was significantly higher compared with the unstimulated products; however, neither the average number of granulocytes transfused by weight nor outcomes difference was noticed between these groups. CONCLUSIONS: GTx is safe in neutropenic and infected pediatric patients after HSCT. However, no difference in the outcomes was noticed between the group that received stimulated products and the group that received unstimulated products.