Search

Introduction: In case of newly emerging pathogens, convalescent plasma (CP) is often the only early available treatment option. It has been shown that different IgG subclasses contribute differently to CP neutralizing activity. As CP donors often have a risk profile like first-time donors, especially with respect to window-period viral transmission, pathogen reduction (PR) could mitigate that risk. The aim of our study, especially in the light of potential future pandemics, was to evaluate the impact of commercially available PR technologies on total IgG and IgG subclasses quantity and distribution in CP using COVID-19 CP (CCP) as surrogate for CP in a side-by-side comparison approach. Methods: 36 apheresis CCP donations were allocated to three study groups and a side-by-side assessment of the potential impact of amotosalen (AS)/UVA treatment compared to a riboflavin (RB)/UVB treatment, AS against methylene blue (MB) treatment, and RB against MB treatment on the quantity of IgG and IgG subclasses with a nephelometric analyzer was performed. Results: IgG subclass distributions were not significantly changed post PR treatment with all three technologies. There was also no significant difference in the median loss of concentration for IgG1 and IgG2 between the three technologies. We recognized a non-significant trend of a higher IgG4 median loss post RB treatment compared to post AS and MB treatment, respectively. Conclusion: Although the three commercially available PR systems do not significantly alter the distribution of IgG subclasses, we detected a non-significant trend of higher IgG4 loss after RB treatment. The potential impact of that finding needs further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Assessment of the impact of pooling five single‐donor plasma (SDP) units to obtain six pathogen‐reduced therapeutic plasma (PTP) units on standardisation and the retention of labile coagulation factors. Background: SDP shows a high inter‐donor variability with potential implications for the clinical treatment outcome. Additionally, there is still an existing risk for window‐period transmissions of blood borne pathogens including newly emerging pathogens. Methods/Materials: Five ABO‐identical SDP units were pooled, treated with the INTERTCEPT™ Blood System (Cerus Corporation, U.S.A.) and split into six PTP units which were frozen and thawed after 30 days. The variability in volume, labile coagulation factor retention and activity was assessed. Results: The variability of volumes between the PTP units was reduced by 46% compared to SDP units. The variability in coagulation factor content between the PTP units was reduced by 63% compared to SDP units. Moderate, but significant losses of coagulation factors (except for vWF) were observed in PTPs compared to SDPs. Conclusion: The pooling of five SDP units to obtain six PTP units significantly increases product standardisation with potential implications for safety, economics as well as transfusion‐transmitted pathogen safety, making it an interesting alternative to quarantine SDP (qSDP) and pathogen‐reduced SDP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic strict measures to ensure social distancing were introduced according to pandemic wave progression, especially in 2020. The hospitals were instructed to reduce routine surgery and treatment and increase COVID-19 patients treatment capacities, impacting blood product availability and demand. Aims: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood donation, component preparation, demand and procedures in the WRBTC. Material and methods: Data about blood product collections and component production from the WRBTC during 2020 and 2021 were analyzed and compared to each other and to 2019 pre-pandemic data as well as in relation to pandemic waves in Poland and COVID-19 control as per regulations. Results: The number of WB donations dropped 8.7% in 2020 compared to 2019. Most impactful in April (5868) and November (7487) compared to the average number of donations per month (8226.4 ± 1166.5) in that year, correlating with strict measures to ensure social distancing. The demand for RBCs and PCs decreased as well. The total number of RBCs produced in 2020 was reduced 9.8% compared to 2019, the number of PCs 17.8%. In 2021 RBCs reached 2019 levels, while PCs were still 10% lower. A shift from 8.9% apheresis FFP in 2019 to 1.8% in 2020 and 1.3% in 2021 was observed. PR-FFP increased from 26.6% of FFP issued units in 2019 to 41.5% in 2020 and 57% in 2021. Conclusions: Decreased donations and decreased demand during the first 2 waves of COVID-19 due to shifting hospital clinical practice led to decreased production and demand in 2020, but not in 2021. Changes in donor availability and introduction of CCP collection led to a shift from AP-FFP to WB-FFP. The need for increased flexibility resulted in the decision to nearly double the rate of PR-treated FFP units optimizing blood supply chain management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, pathogen reduction (PR) was introduced for the treatment of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to reduce the risk of window-period viral transmission. From May 26th, 2021, PR-platelets were issued in additionally to assess the acceptance and tolerability of PR-platelets. Aims: To assess transfusion practice after the introduction of PR-platelets and identification of the most exposed patient groups benefitting most from PR-platelets. Material and methods: Platelet transfusion reports from 16 hospitals in the Radom City and southern Masovian voivodeship between May 1st, 2021 and January 31st, 2022 were collected and analyzed for transfusion frequency in 4 patient groups (hematology, oncology, COVID-19, other). Since COVID-19 appeared as a new indication, that patient group was analyzed separately. Results: The median age of all transfused patients was 65 years (14-91). 28.2% of transfused platelets in the hematology patient group were PR, 13.7% in the other, 13% in the oncology and 0% in the COVID-19 patient group. The median number of transfusions received per patient (n = = 164) was 2 (1-26). For hematology patients (n = 31) it was 9 (1-26), oncology (n = 24) 2 (1-8), COVID-19 (n = 6) 2 (2-11) and other (n = 103) 2 (1-12). The average platelet dose per unit was 3.4 × 1011 ± 0.4 for all platelet units, 3.4 × × 1011 ± 0.4 for conventional platelets (n = 525) and 3.3 × × 1011 ± 0.3 for PR-platelets (n = 99), p >0.05. No unexpected adverse events were reported during the analysis time. Conclusion: The newly emerging COVID-19 patient group had a comparable platelet transfusion rate to the non-hematology patient groups. The hematology group had the highest exposure to platelet transfusion with an increased risk for transfusion-transmitted infections and a high median age. 68% of patients in that group received 6 or more platelet transfusions. An increase of PR-platelet production to 50% would be needed to support that vulnerable group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]