Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) collection began in two Brazilian hospitals for treatment of severe/ critical patients. Methods and Materials: Mild/moderate COVID-19 convalescents were selected as CCP donors after reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and absence of symptoms for ≥14 days plus (a) age (18-60 years), body weight greater than 55 kg; (b) immunohematological studies; (c) no infectious markers of hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human T-lymphotropic virus-1/2, Chagas and syphilis infection; (d) no HLA antibodies (multiparous); (e) second RT-PCR (nasopharyngeal swab and/or blood) negativity; (f) virus neutralization test (cytopathic effect-based virus neutralization test neutralizing antibody) and anti-nucleocapsid protein SARS-CoV-2 IgM, IgG, and IgA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Results: Among 271 donors (41 females, 230 males), 250 presented with neutralizing antibodies. Final RT-PCR was negative on swab (77.0%) or blood (88.4%; P = .46). Final definition of RT-PCR was only defined at more than 28 days after full recovery in 59 of 174 (33.9%) RT-PCR-ve, and 25/69 RT-PCR +ve (36.2%;

The formula of Pierelli et al. is associated with a PPV that is high, moderate, and relatively low for the corresponding predicted CD34+ doses.

Background RHD alleles leading to a reduced expression of D antigen of the red blood cell (RBC) surface may be erroneously typed as D− by serology and may cause anti‐D immunizations when transfused to recipients. Methods To determine the occurrence of such alleles among apparent D− blood donors, molecular typing was implemented as a routine test using a pool of DNA. A total of 2,450 pretyped D− samples were tested in pools of 10 for the RHD‐specific polymorphism in intron 4 and exon 7. Samples in polymer chain reaction (PCR) positive pools were individually reevaluated by exon‐specific PCRs, sequencing, and serologic methods. Results Among 2,450 serologically D− blood donor samples tested, 101 (4.1%) carried the RHD gene. Nonfunctional RHD (RHDψ, RHD*CE(2–9)‐D, and RHD*CE(3–7)‐D), different weak D alleles such as RHD*weak D type 1, RHD*weak D type 4.3, RHD*weak D type 5, RHD*weak D type 38, and RHD*DEL were identified. Conclusion We employed a PCR‐based assay for RHD as a routine test using pools of ten DNA blood donor samples. The integration of RHD genotyping into the routine screening program using pools of DNA samples was straightforward. As a consequence, 19 (0.8%) blood donors carrying a weak D and Del phenotypes with the potential of causing anti‐D immunizations in recipients were reclassified as D+. For each population, it would be necessary to adapt the RHD genotyping strategy to the spectrum of prevalent alleles.

This study has shown that preapheresis PB WBC and granulocyte counts were associated with leukapheresis CE. Additionally, the leukapheresis product TNC and granulocyte content was correlated with thawed graft infusion side effect occurrence.

Background Blood groups and anti‐A isohemagglutinin may be involved in susceptibility to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Materials and Methods We retrospectively studied 268 COVID‐19 convalescent plasma donors and 162 COVID‐19 inpatients (total 430 subjects, confirmed by RT‐PCR) and 2,212 healthy volunteer first‐time blood donors as a control group. These were further divided into two groups: those with anti‐A (blood types O and B) and those without it (types A and AB). Titres of nucleoproteins, and neutralizing SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody were measured in the convalescent plasma donors and inpatients. Multivariate logistic regression and non‐parametric tests were applied. Results Persons having types O or B showed less infection prevalence than those of types A or AB (OR = 0·62, 95% CI 0·50–0·78; P < 0·001), but there was no difference when COVID‐19 inpatients were analysed. Immunoglobulins M, G and A were lower in COVID‐19 subjects of types O or B group than those of A or AB (0·16 vs. 0·19; P = 0·03, 2·11 vs. 2·55; P = 0·02, 0·23 vs. 0·32; P = 0·03, respectively). Conclusion In this retrospective cohort, COVID‐19 individuals were less likely to belong to blood types O and B, and also had lower SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody titres than A and AB individuals. COVID‐19 severity did not associate with the blood groups.

Objective: To evaluate factors affecting peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cell yield in patients undergoing large-volume leukapheresis for autologous peripheral blood stem cell collection. Methods: Data from 304 consecutive autologous peripheral blood stem cell donors mobilized with hematopoietic growth factor (usually G-CSF), associated or not with chemotherapy, at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein between February 1999 and June 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. The objective was to obtain at least 2 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg of body weight. Pre-mobilization factors analyzed included patient's age, gender and diagnosis. Post mobilization parameters evaluated were pre-apheresis peripheral white blood cell count, immature circulating cell count, mononuclear cell count, peripheral blood CD34+ cell count, platelet count, and hemoglobin level. The effect of pre and post-mobilization factors on hematopoietic stem cell collection yield was investigated using logistic regression analysis (univariate and multivariate approaches). Results: Pre-mobilization factors correlating to poor CD34 + cell yield in univariate analysis were acute myeloid leukemia (p = 0.017) and other hematological diseases (p = 0.023). Significant post-mobilization factors included peripheral blood immature circulating cells (p = 0.001), granulocytes (p = 0.002), hemoglobin level (p = 0.016), and CD34+ cell concentration (p < 0.001) in the first harvesting day. However, according to multivariate analysis, peripheral blood CD34+ cell content (p < 0.001) was the only independent factor that significantly correlated to poor hematopoietic stem cell yield. Conclusion: In this study, peripheral blood CD34+ cell concentration was the only factor significantly correlated to yield in patients submitted to for autologous collection.

No abstract

Background Current evidence regarding COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) transfusion practices is limited and heterogeneous. We aimed to determine the impact of the use of CCP transfusion in patients with previous circulating neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) in COVID‐19. Methods Prospective cohort including 102 patients with COVID‐19 transfused with ABO compatible CCP on days 0–2 after enrollment. Clinical status of patients was assessed using the adapted World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale on days 0, 5, and 14. The nAbs titration was performed using the cytopathic effect‐based virus neutralization test with SARS‐CoV‐2 (GenBank MT126808.1). The primary outcome was clinical improvement on day 14, defined as a reduction of at least two points on the adapted WHO ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were the number of intensive care unit (ICU)‐free days and the number of invasive mechanical ventilation‐free days. Results Both nAbs of CCP units transfused (p < 0.001) and nAbs of patients before CCP transfusions (p = 0.028) were associated with clinical improvements by day 14. No significant associations between nAbs of patients or CCP units transfused were observed in the number of ICU or mechanical ventilation‐free days. Administration of CCP units after 10 days of symptom onset resulted in a decrease in ICU‐free days (p < 0.001) and mechanical ventilation‐free days (p < 0.001). Conclusion Transfusion of high titer nAbs CCP units may be a determinant in clinical strategies against COVID‐19. We consider these data as useful parameters to guide future CCP transfusion practices.