Background and Objectives The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has impacted blood systems worldwide. Challenges included maintaining blood supplies and initiating the collection and use of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP). Sharing information on the challenges can help improve blood collection and utilization. Materials and Methods A survey questionnaire was distributed to International Society of Blood Transfusion members in 95 countries. We recorded respondents' demographic information, impacts on the blood supply, CCP collection and use, transfusion demands and operational challenges. Results Eighty‐two responses from 42 countries, including 24 low‐ and middle‐income countries, were analysed. Participants worked in national (26.8%) and regional (26.8%) blood establishments and hospital‐based (42.7%) institutions. CCP collection and transfusion were reported by 63% and 36.6% of respondents, respectively. Decreases in blood donations occurred in 70.6% of collecting facilities. Despite safety measures and recruitment strategies, donor fear and refusal of institutions to host blood drives were major contributing factors. Almost half of respondents working at transfusion medicine services were from large hospitals with over 10,000 red cell transfusions per year, and 76.8% of those hospitals experienced blood shortages. Practices varied in accepting donors for blood or CCP donations after a history of COVID‐19 infection, CCP transfusion, or vaccination. Operational challenges included loss of staff, increased workloads and delays in reagent supplies. Almost half of the institutions modified their disaster plans during the pandemic. Conclusion The challenges faced by blood systems during the COVID‐19 pandemic highlight the need for guidance, harmonization, and strengthening of the preparedness and the capacity of blood systems against future infectious threats.

Purpose: Anemia is one of the most common disorders affecting the population in both low-income and developing countries. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of anemia and iron deficiency in apparently normal male and female students of

No abstract

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening complication arising from venous thromboembolism with a difficult diagnosis and treatment and is often associated with increased mortality and morbidity. PE had a significantly low incidence prior to the COVID-19 epidemic. This condition saw a sharp surge during the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating an evident viral influence on PE’s pathophysiology in COVID-19 patients. The hypercoagulable state induced by the viral load seems to be the major contributor, and the classical causative factors seem to play a lesser role. PE in COVID-19 infection has become a mammoth challenge since the diagnosis is quite challenging due to overlapping symptoms, lack of prior-known predisposing risk factors, limited resources, and viral transmittance risk. Numerous factors arising out of the viral load or treatment lead to an increased risk for PE in COVID-19 patients, besides the fact that certain unknown risk factors may also contribute to the incidence of PE in COVID-19 patients. The management of PE in COVID-19 infection mainly comprises thromboprophylaxis and anticoagulant therapy with mechanical ventilation, depending on the risk stratification of the patient, with a post-COVID-19 management that prevents recurrent PE and complications. This review aims to discuss various aspects of COVID-19-infection-associated PE and major differential aspects from non-COVID-19 PE.

No abstract

Background The hypercoagulability and thrombotic tendency in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is multifactorial, driven mainly by inflammation, and endothelial dysfunction. Elevated levels of procoagulant microvesicles (MVs) and tissue factor–bearing microvesicles (TF-bearing MVs) have been observed in many diseases with thrombotic tendency. The current study aimed to measure the levels of procoagulant MVs and TF-bearing MVs in patients with COVID-19 and healthy controls and to correlate their levels with platelet counts, D-Dimer levels, and other proposed calculated inflammatory markers. Materials and Methods Forty ICU-admitted patients with COVID-19 and 37 healthy controls were recruited in the study. Levels of procoagulant MVs and TF-bearing MVs in the plasma of the study population were measured using enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. Results COVID-19 patients had significantly elevated levels of procoagulant MVs and TF-bearing MVs as compared with healthy controls (P<0.001). Procoagulant MVs significantly correlated with TF-bearing MVs, D-dimer levels, and platelet count, but not with calculated inflammatory markers (neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, platelet/lymphocyte ratio, and platelet/neutrophil ratio). Conclusion Elevated levels of procoagulant MVs and TF-bearing MVs in patients with COVID-19 are suggested to be (i) early potential markers to predict the severity of COVID-19 (ii) a novel circulatory biomarker to evaluate the procoagulant activity and severity of COVID-19.

Background: The levels of procoagulant microvesicles (MVs) and tissue factor (TF)-bearing MVs may be increased in many conditions, including dengue fever (DF). This study aimed to measure the levels of MVs and TF-bearing MVs in patients with DF and matched healthy controls. Materials & methods: Levels of MVs and TF-bearing MVs in the plasma of patients with DF and matched healthy controls were measured using functional assay. Results: The patient group had significantly elevated levels of MVs (p < 0.001) and slightly increased levels of TF-bearing MVs (p = 0.454) compared with the matched healthy controls. Conclusion: Elevated levels of MVs and TF-bearing MVs could be used as biomarkers to evaluate the hemostatic function of patients with DF.

Purpose: A 2 and A 2 B are rare phenotypes of the ABO blood group system. Some individuals with A 2 and A 2 B may have anti-A 1 antibodies that may be clinically significant or insignificant. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of A 2 , A 2 B phenotypes and anti-A 1 antibodies in blood donors in Jazan, Saudi Arabia. This study also evaluated the reactivity potential of anti-A 1 antibodies. Materials and Methods: Blood samples collected from 446 blood donors were typed for ABO (cell and serum grouping) and Rh D. Individuals with blood group A and AB were further subtyped by testing with anti-A 1 lectin. In addition to the serum grouping using A 1 red cells, A 2 and A 2 B individuals were screened for the presence of anti-A 1 in their sera against A 1 red cells at 4°C, 22°C and 37°C to determine the thermal amplitude of the reacting anti-A 1 antibody (if present). Results: Among A and AB, A 1 was the commonest phenotype (20.2%, n=90 out of 446) while A 1 B was found to be 1.8% (n=8) among AB phenotype. A 2 and A 2 B were found to be 2.2% (n=10) and 0.9% (n=4), respectively. Only one individual with A 2 B blood type showed cold reactive anti-A 1 antibody, the strength of which was 32. Conclusion: A 2 and A 2 B were the rarest among ABO phenotypes in the studied population. Although rare, anti-A 1 antibody is not so uncommon. Care shall be taken during routine ABO grouping especially in cases of mix-field or weak positive reactions in A and AB phenotypes.