Transfusions of RBCs stored for longer durations are associated with adverse effects in hospitalized patients. We prospectively studied 14 healthy human volunteers who donated standard leukoreduced, double RBC units. One unit was autologously transfused "fresh" (3-7 days of storage), and the other "older" unit was transfused after 40 to 42 days of storage. Of the routine laboratory parameters measured at defined times surrounding transfusion, significant differences between fresh and older transfusions were only observed in iron parameters and markers of extravascular hemolysis. IntroductionThe safety of transfusing RBCs after longer durations of refrigerated storage was recently identified as "the most critical issue facing transfusion medicine." 1 page 667 Concern was heightened when a large observational study of cardiac surgery patients found an increased risk of postoperative complications and reduced survival in those who received RBCs stored for more than 14 days. 2 Although still controversial, adverse clinical consequences have since been reported in most, [3][4][5] although not all, 6,7 epidemiologic studies of transfusions of RBCs stored for longer durations, but still within Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines. The association between the duration of RBC storage and increased rates of serious infections, sepsis, and mortality is particularly strong in trauma patients. [7][8][9][10][11] Definitive determination of the potential risks associated with transfusion of RBCs stored for longer durations has been elusive, in part because the mechanisms responsible have not yet been identified.More than 14 million RBC units are transfused in the United States each year, with a mean storage interval of 18 days before transfusion. 12 During storage, RBCs undergo cumulative biochemical and biomechanical changes (the "storage lesion") that reduce their survival in vivo after transfusion. 13,14 In mouse models, 15 transfusion of RBCs stored for longer durations was followed by brisk extravascular clearance of a subpopulation of these cells, which were damaged during storage and removed by macrophages in the spleen and liver of recipient mice. The iron liberated by phagocytic digestion of these RBCs rapidly entered the systemic circulation in amounts that exceeded the transport capacity of plasma transferrin, the physiologic iron-binding protein; in this way, circulating non-transferrin-bound iron appeared and promoted the proliferation of pathogenic bacteria both in vitro 15 and in vivo. 16 We hypothesized that the infectious complications observed in human patients after transfusion of RBCs stored for longer durations were, at least in part, the result of the production of circulating non-transferrin-bound iron. Therefore, we prospectively examined healthy human volunteers to determine (1) if transfusion of autologous RBCs stored for longer durations was followed by the appearance of circulating non-transferrin-bound iron in vivo, and (2) if this increased circulating non-transferrinbound iron was assoc...

Background: Although 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. Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma among adults hospitalized with severe and critical COVID-19. Design: Randomized, double-blind, controlled, multicenter, phase 2 trial conducted from April 21st to November 27th, 2020. Setting: Five hospitals in New York City (NY, USA) and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Participants: Hospitalized patients aged ≥18 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, infiltrates on chest imaging and oxygen saturation ≤ 94% on room air or requirement for supplemental oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Intervention: Participants were randomized 2:1 to a single transfusion of either 1 unit of convalescent or normal control plasma. Measurements: The primary outcome was clinical status at 28 days, measured using an ordinal scale and analyzed using a proportional odds model in the intention-to-treat population (with an odds ratio (OR) >1.0 indicating improved clinical status in the convalescent plasma group). Results: Of 223 participants enrolled, 150 were randomized to receive convalescent plasma and 73 to normal control plasma. At 28 days, no significant improvement in clinical status 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. Serious adverse events occurred in 39/147 (27%) participants who received convalescent plasma and 26/72 (36%) participants who received control plasma. Limitations: Some participants did not receive high-titer convalescent plasma. Conclusion: In adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19, use of convalescent plasma was not associated with significant improvement in 28 days clinical status. However, a significant improvement in mortality was observed, which warrants further evaluation. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04359810 Funding: Amazon Foundation

Background: Although convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019 , data from randomized controlled trials that support its efficacy are limited. Methods:We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial among adults hospitalized with severe and critical COVID-19 at five 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 placebo (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.Results: Of 223 participants enrolled, 150 were randomized to receive convalescent plasma and 73 to 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. Conclusion:In 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.

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 delivery of patients with placenta accreta is a high-risk procedure that requires multidisciplinary planning and adequate resources to optimize outcome. Transfusion services should have a protocol for managing these cases that addresses preoperative blood component preparation and intraoperative management, should massive hemorrhage occur.

Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDA-R) encephalitis is thought to be one of the common paraneoplastic-associated encephalitides. Between February 2001 and February 2011, nine patients were diagnosed with this disorder at Columbia University Medical Center: eight females (mean age 23 years) and one male (3 years of age). Four female patients had ovarian teratomas, which were removed as part of their treatment. Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) was used as one of the treatment modalities in addition to immunosuppressive therapy, including corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and/or rituximab. A total of 56 TPE procedures were performed in these patients on alternate days (range, 5-14 procedures/patient). Approximately 1 plasma volume (PV) was processed for all patients; 5% albumin and 0.9% normal saline were used as replacement fluid. Complications occurred in 20% of TPE procedures; 9% were possibly due to underlying disease. The remaining 11% of complications were hypotensive episodes that rapidly responded to either a fluid bolus or a vasopressor treatment. One patient demonstrated immediate clinical improvement after three TPE treatments, and four patients had significant improvement at time of discharge from the hospital. Long-term follow-up showed that early initiation of TPE appears to be beneficial, and patients who received IVIG after TPE did better than those who received IVIG before TPE. However, the number of patients in this series is too small to provide statistically significant conclusions. Overall, TPE is a relatively safe treatment option in patients with anti-NMDA-R encephalitis. Further studies are needed to elucidate the benefit of TPE in this disease.

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.

In the mid-20 th 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.