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%;
Jean-Pierre Allain and colleagues argue that, while unintended, the foreign aid provided for blood transfusion services in sub-Saharan Africa has resulted in serious negative outcomes, which requires reflection and rethinking.
Background and objectives
COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been used, predominantly in high‐income countries (HICs) to treat COVID‐19; available data suggest the safety and efficacy of use. We sought to develop guidance for procurement and use of CCP, particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) for which data are lacking.
Materials and methods
A multidisciplinary, geographically representative group of individuals with expertise spanning transfusion medicine, infectious diseases and haematology was tasked with the development of a guidance document for CCP, drawing on expert opinion, survey of group members and review of available evidence. Three subgroups (i.e. donor, product and patient) were established based on self‐identified expertise and interest. Here, the donor and product‐related challenges are summarized and contrasted between HICs and LMICs with a view to guide related practices.
The challenges to advance CCP therapy are different between HICs and LMICs. Early challenges in HICs related to recruitment and qualification of sufficient donors to meet the growing demand. Antibody testing also posed a specific obstacle given lack of standardization, variable performance of the assays in use and uncertain interpretation of results. In LMICs, an extant transfusion deficit, suboptimal models of donor recruitment (e.g. reliance on replacement and paid donors), limited laboratory capacity for pre‐donation qualification and operational considerations could impede wide adoption.
There has been wide‐scale adoption of CCP in many HICs, which could increase if clinical trials show efficacy of use. By contrast, LMICs, having received little attention, require locally applicable strategies for adoption of CCP.
Background and objectives:
The International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) Working Party
for Red Cell Immunogenetics and Blood Group Terminology meets in association
with the ISBT congress and has met three times since the last report: at the
international meetings held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, September 2016
and Toronto, Canada, June 2018; and at a regional congress in Copenhagen,
Denmark, June 2017 for an interim session.
As in previous meetings, matters pertaining to blood group antigen
nomenclature and classification were discussed. New blood group antigens
were approved and named according to the serologic and molecular evidence
Results and conclusions:
Fifteen new blood group antigens were added to eight blood group
systems. One antigen was made obsolete based on additional data.
Consequently, the current total of blood group antigens recognised by the
ISBT is 360, of which 322 are clustered within 36 blood groups systems. The
remaining 38 antigens are currently unassigned to a known system. Clinically
significant blood group antigens continue to be discovered, through
serology/sequencing and/or recombinant or genomic technologies.
The reported frequency of D alloimmunization in D- recipients after transfusion of D+ platelets varies. This study was designed to determine the frequency of D alloimmunization, previously reported to be an average of 5%±2%. A primary anti-D immune response was defined as the detection of anti-D ≥28 days following the first D+ platelet transfusion. Data were collected on 485 D- recipients of D+ platelets in 11 centres between 2010-2012. Their median age was 60 (range 2-100) years. Diagnoses included: haematological (203/485, 42%), oncological (64/485, 13%) and other diseases (218/485, 45%). Only 7/485 (1.44%; 95%CI 0.58-2.97%) recipients had a primary anti-D response after a median serological follow-up of 77 days (range: 28-2111). There were no statistically significant differences between the primary anti-D formers and the other patients, in terms of gender, age, receipt of immunosuppressive therapy, proportion of patients with haematological/oncological diseases, transfusion of whole blood-derived or apheresis platelets or both, and total number of transfused platelet products. This is the largest study with the longest follow-up of D alloimmunization following D+ platelet transfusion. The low frequency of D alloimmunization should be considered when deciding whether to administer Rh Immune Globulin to D- males and D- females without childbearing potential after transfusion of D+ platelets.
scite is a Brooklyn-based startup that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.