BACKGROUND Some observational studies have reported that transfusion of red-cell units that have been stored for more than 2 to 3 weeks is associated with serious, even fatal, adverse events. Patients undergoingcardiac surgery may be especially vulnerable to the adverse effects of transfusion. METHODS We conducted a randomized trial at multiple sites from 2010 to 2014. Participants 12 years of age or older who were undergoing complex cardiac surgery and were likely to undergo transfusion of red cells were randomly assigned to receive leukocyte-reduced red cells stored for 10 days or less (shorter-term storage group) or for 21 days or more (longer-term storage group) for all intraoperative and postoperative transfusions. The primary outcome was the change in Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS; range, 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more severe organ dysfunction) from the preoperative score to the highest composite score through day 7 or the time of death or discharge. RESULTS The median storage time of red-cell units provided to the 1098 participants who received red-cell transfusion was 7 days in the shorter-term storage group and 28 days in the longer-term storage group. The mean change in MODS was an increase of 8.5 and 8.7 points, respectively (95% confidence interval for the difference, −0.6 to 0.3; P = 0.44). The 7-day mortality was 2.8% in the shorter-term storage group and 2.0% in the longer-term storage group (P = 0.43); 28-day mortality was 4.4% and 5.3%, respectively (P = 0.57). Adverse events did not differ significantly between groups except that hyperbilirubinemia was more common in the longer-term storage group. CONCLUSIONS The duration of red-cell storage was not associated with significant differences in the change in MODS. We did not find that the transfusion of red cells stored for 10 days or less was superior to the transfusion of red cells stored for 21 days or more among patients 12 years of age or older who were undergoing complex cardiac surgery. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; RECESS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00991341.)

The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset (NCT04348656). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm—relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02–1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14–2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

Key Points Overall, no benefit of granulocyte transfusion therapy was observed, but the power of the study was reduced due to low accrual. Post hoc secondary analysis suggested that patients receiving higher doses tended to have better outcomes than those receiving lower ones.

Patients with cancer may be at increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the role of viral load on this risk is unknown. We measured SARS-CoV-2 viral load using cycle threshold (C T ) values from reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assays applied to nasopharyngeal swab specimens in 100 patients with cancer and 2914 without cancer who were admitted to three New York City hospitals. Overall, the in-hospital mortality rate was 38.8% among patients with a high viral load, 24.1% among patients with a medium viral load, and 15.3% among patients with a low viral load ( P <0.001). Similar findings were observed in patients with cancer (high, 45.2% mortality; medium, 28.0%; low, 12.1%; P =0.008). Patients with hematologic malignancies had higher median viral loads (C T =25.0) than patients without cancer (C T =29.2; P =0.0039). SARS-CoV-2 viral load results may offer vital prognostic information for patients with and without cancer who are hospitalized with COVID-19.

SummaryBackgroundInfluenza causes significant morbidity and mortality despite currently available treatments. Anecdotal reports suggest plasma with high antibody titers towards influenza may be of benefit in the treatment of severe influenza.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase 2 trial at 29 academic medical centers in the United States to assess the safety and efficacy of anti-influenza plasma with hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibody titers of ≥ 1:80 to the infecting strain. Hospitalized children and adults (including pregnant women) with severe influenza A or B (defined as hypoxia or tachypnea) were randomly assigned to receive either 2 units (or pediatric equivalent) of anti-influenza plasma plus standard care (P+S), versus standard care alone (S), and were followed for 28 days. The primary endpoint was time to normalization of patients’ respiratory status (respiratory rate of ≤ 20 for adults or age defined thresholds of 20–38 for children), and a room air saturation of oxygen ≥ 93%. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01052480FindingsBetween January 13, 2011 and March 2, 2015, 113 participants were screened, and 98 were randomized. Of the participants with confirmed influenza, 28 of 42 (67%) of P+S participants normalized their respiratory status by Day 28, as compared to 24 of 45 (53%) of S participants (p=0·069). The estimated hazard ratio comparing P+S to S was 1·71 (95% CI: 0·96 to 3·06). Six participants died, 1 (2%) and 5 (10%) from the P+S and S arms respectively (p=0·093). P+S participants had non-significant reductions in days in hospital (median 6 vs. 11 days, p=0·13) and days on mechanical ventilation (median 0 vs. 3 days, p=0·14), and significantly improved clinical status at Day 7 (p=0·020). Fewer P+S participants experienced SAEs compared to S recipients (20% vs. 38%, p= 0·041), the most frequent of which were acute respiratory distress syndrome (1 [2%] vs 2 [4%]) and stroke (1 [2%] vs 2 [4%]).InterpretationResults from this Phase II randomized trial of immune plasma for the treatment of severe influenza provides support for a possible benefit of immunotherapy across the primary and secondary endpoints. A Phase III randomized trial is now underway to further evaluate this intervention.

The results of this study suggest that perioperative RBC transfusions may be significantly associated with the development of new or progressive postoperative VTE, independent of several putative confounders. These findings, if validated, should reinforce the importance of rigorous perioperative management of blood transfusion practices.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a pandemic. Global health care now faces unprecedented challenges with widespread and rapid human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and high morbidity and mortality with COVID-19 worldwide. Across the world, medical care is hampered by a critical shortage of not only hand sanitizers, personal protective equipment, ventilators, and hospital beds, but also impediments to the blood supply. Blood donation centers in many areas around the globe have mostly closed. Donors, practicing social distancing, some either with illness or undergoing self-quarantine, are quickly diminishing. Drastic public health initiatives have focused on containment and “flattening the curve” while invaluable resources are being depleted. In some countries, the point has been reached at which the demand for such resources, including donor blood, outstrips the supply. Questions as to the safety of blood persist. Although it does not appear very likely that the virus can be transmitted through allogeneic blood transfusion, this still remains to be fully determined. As options dwindle, we must enact regional and national shortage plans worldwide and more vitally disseminate the knowledge of and immediately implement patient blood management (PBM). PBM is an evidence-based bundle of care to optimize medical and surgical patient outcomes by clinically managing and preserving a patient’s own blood. This multinational and diverse group of authors issue this “Call to Action” underscoring “The Essential Role of Patient Blood Management in the Management of Pandemics” and urging all stakeholders and providers to implement the practical and commonsense principles of PBM and its multiprofessional and multimodality approaches.

IMPORTANCE Accumulating evidence suggests that children infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are more likely to manifest mild symptoms and are at a lower risk of developing severe respiratory disease compared with adults. It remains unknown how the immune response in children differs from that of adolescents and adults. OBJECTIVE To investigate the association of age with the quantity and quality of SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study used 31 426 SARS-CoV-2 antibody test results from pediatric and adult patients. Data were collected from a New York City hospital from April 9 to August 31, 2020. The semiquantitative immunoglobin (Ig) G levels were compared between 85 pediatric and 3648 adult patients. Further analysis of SARS-CoV-2 antibody profiles was performed on sera from 126 patients aged 1 to 24 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity rates and IgG levels were evaluated in patients from a wide range of age groups (1-102 years). SARS-CoV-2 IgG level, total antibody (TAb) level, surrogate neutralizing antibody (SNAb) activity, and antibody binding avidity were compared between children (aged 1-10 years), adolescents (aged 11-18 years), and young adults (aged 19-24 years). RESULTS Among 31 426 antibody test results (19 797 [63.0%] female patients), with 1194 pediatric patients (mean [SD] age, 11.0 [5.3] years) and 30 232 adult patients (mean [SD] age, 49.2 [17.1] years), the seroprevalence in the pediatric (197 [16.5%; 95% CI, 14.4%-18.7%]) and adult (5630 [18.6%; 95% CI, 18.2%-19.1%]) patient populations was similar. The SARS-CoV-2 IgG level showed a negative correlation with age in the pediatric population (r = −0.45, P < .001) and a moderate but positive correlation with age in adults (r = 0.24, P < .001). Patients aged 19 to 30 years exhibited the lowest IgG levels (eg, aged 25-30 years vs 1-10 years: 99 [44-180] relative fluorescence units [RFU] vs 443