Due to the potential of a severe pandemic to limit efficacy or availability of medical countermeasures, some researchers have begun a search for new interventions that could complement the planned antiviral- and vaccine-based response to an influenza pandemic. One such countermeasure-the transfusion of pandemic influenza-specific antibodies from surviving patients to the clinically ill-is the focus of this commentary. Passive immunotherapy, which includes the use of monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs), hyperimmune globulin, or convalescent plasma, had been used before the advent of antibiotics and has recently reentered the limelight due to the accelerating development of MoAb therapies against cancer, a number of microbes, allograft rejection, and a host of other conditions. After the plausible biologic mechanism and somewhat limited data supporting the efficacy for this modality against influenza are reviewed, safety and logistical concerns for utilization of this potential new product (fresh convalescent plasma against influenza [FCP-Flu]) are discussed. FCP-Flu could indeed prove useful in a response to a pandemic, but two necessary items must first be satisfied. Most importantly, more research should be conducted to establish FCP-Flu efficacy against the current and other pandemic strains. Second, and also importantly, blood banks and donor centers should examine whether offering this new product would be feasible in a pandemic and begin planning before a more severe pandemic forces us to respond without adequate preparation.

BACKGROUND Contemporary population‐based data on characteristics associated with blood donation in the United States (U.S.) are limited. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS A cross‐sectional analysis was performed among 28,739 persons aged 18 years and older who participated in the 2016 National Health Interview Survey, a household survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. civilian population. Analyses were weighted and accounted for the complex survey design. Adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) were estimated by multivariable log‐binomial regression. RESULTS The percentage of individuals reporting a past‐year history of blood donation was 5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3%‐6.1%) and was highest in the youngest age group (18‐24 years, 8.4%). A past‐year history of blood donation was more common in males compared to females (6.3% vs. 5.1%; aPR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99‐1.27]) and those born in the U.S. compared to individuals born outside the U.S. (6.4% vs. 2.4%; aPR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.49‐2.47]). The percentage of individuals with a past‐year history of blood donation was significantly lower in blacks (3.9%; aPR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.47‐0.75]) and Hispanics (3.0%; aPR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.48‐0.83]) in comparison to whites (6.9%). Being a college graduate, being employed, being physically active, and never being a cigarette smoker were factors positively associated with blood donation. The percentage of individuals with a past‐year history of blood donation varied by geographic census region, with prevalence being higher in the Midwest (7.3%) and South (6.0%) compared to the Northeast (4.7%) and West (4.4%). CONCLUSION Continued differences in the blood donor population with reference to the U.S. population underscore the need to understand barriers or deterrents to blood donation. Evidence‐based donor recruitment and related policies remain imperative to ensure that there is a sustainable blood supply.