Compared to 2011, WB and RBC collections declined significantly in 2013 and disproportionately to the significant reductions in WB and RBC transfusions. Distributions of PLTs and plasma for transfusion declined in 2013, as did transfusions of plasma, while transfusion of PLTs increased significantly. Decreases in outdated and wasted components by hospitals suggest improvements in product and inventory management. Ongoing national surveys allow for trend analysis and are important for future planning.

No abstract

BACKGROUND Uniform and consistent reporting and comparison of donor adverse events (DAEs) and severity are well‐recognized challenges for donor hemovigilance (DHV). While the 2014 Standard for Surveillance of Complications Related to Blood Donation (SSCRBD), developed by hemovigilance experts from AABB, the International Society of Blood Transfusion, and International Hemovigilance Network, established the DAE definitions, no specific guidelines were provided to grade severity. A group of subject matter experts developed the Severity Grading Tool for Blood Donor Adverse Events (SGT) to enhance objective assignment of severity and conducted a study to validate the tool. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Between January 8, 2019, and February 28, 2019, participants graded severity of 32 cases (34 DAEs) using the SGT. Comments boxes allowed participants to provide rationale for selecting a severity grade for each case. Agreement with expert grading among study participants was evaluated using percentage agreement. Inter‐rater reliability was evaluated by Kendallʼs coefficient of concordance (W). The final SGT was revised based on validation study results and feedback received. RESULTS The overall agreement was almost perfect with W = 0.84 (confidence interval [CI], 0.78‐0.90). Of 34 DAEs, respondent agreement with expert grading of more than 90% was reached for 18 DAEs, 80% to 90% for six DAEs, 70% to 80% for six DAEs, and less than 70% for four DAEs. CONCLUSION The development and validation of a uniform SGT with objective criteria for assigning severity of DAEs used together with standard reaction definitions will provide opportunities for comparison between blood centers and systems to enhance the field of DHV.

Background The SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic disrupted hospital operations, affected the blood supply, and challenged the health care system to develop new therapeutic options, including convalescent plasma (CCP). The aim of this study is to describe and analyze blood supply fluctuations and the use of convalescent plasma in 2020. Methods AABB distributed a weekly and biweekly questionnaire through email to hospital‐based members (HBM). Results The survey was sent to 887 HBM with 479 unique respondents, most of the hospitals served pediatric and adult patients, and all states of the country participated, except Idaho and Vermont. Fifty four percent of HBM reported increased wastage in the early phase of the pandemic (May), which decreased to 4% by the end of June and throughout the rest of the year. The majority of HBM reported receiving alerts from their blood suppliers reporting blood shortages throughout the year. During March and April, only 12% of HBM were performing elective surgical procedures. The top reasons to delay procedures were: bed availability (28%); COVID‐19 caseload (23%; and blood availability (19%). By mid‐April, 42% HBM had transfused CCP and reported >24 h delay in getting the units; the vast majority obtained CCP using the Expanded Access Protocol, and later, the Emergency Use Authorization. HBM consistently prioritized the most severe patients to receive CCP, but the proportion of severely ill recipients fell from 52% to 37% between May and October, with an increase from 5% to 21% of HBM providing CCP transfusion early in the course of the disease. Discussion Blood utilization and availability fluctuated during the pandemic. The fluctuations appeared to be related to the number of COVID‐19 in the community. The use and regulatory landscape of CCP rapidly evolved over the first 8 months of the pandemic.

Background There are limited standards guiding the selection and processing of blood components specific for neonatal and pediatric transfusions. Therefore, blood banks (BBs) and transfusion services must create their own policies and procedures. Study Design and Methods The American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) Pediatric Transfusion Medicine Subsection Committee developed a 74‐question survey to capture neonatal and pediatric BB practices in the United States. Results Thirty‐five centers completed the survey: a response rate 15.8%. Responses indicated that most carry a mixed inventory of red blood cells (RBCs); 94.2% allow more than one type of RBC product for small‐volume (SV) and large‐volume (LV) transfusions to neonatal and pediatric patients. Many had storage age thresholds for RBCs transfused to neonates (SV = 60%, LV = 67.7%) but not older pediatric patients. The use of Group O for nonurgent RBC transfusion in neonates was common (74.2%). Responses related to special processing of RBCs and platelets indicated that 100% RBC and platelets are leukocyte‐reduced (LR) for neonates and 97% for non‐neonates. Irradiation of RBCs and platelets was commonly performed for neonatal transfusion (88.6%). Providing cytomegalovirus (CMV) seronegative products, volume reduction, and washing were variable. All centers transfused single‐donor apheresis platelets; 20% allowed pathogen reduction (PR). The majority of centers have strategies limiting the amount of incompatible plasma transfused; however, few titrate ABO isoagglutinins in plasma‐containing products (20% for platelets and 9.1% for plasma). Conclusions Variability exists in BB practice for neonatal and pediatric transfusion. Future studies are needed to understand and define best BB practices in these patient populations.

Objective: To document the prevalence, age and gender distribution of oral lesions in HIV infected adults and the influence of highly active antiretroviral therapy and correlate them to the immune status of the patients. Materials and Methods: Oral lesions were diagnosed by a detailed physical examination by trained and calibrated examiners according to the case definitions established by the Oral HIV/AIDS research alliance. Demographic details, risk behavior patterns and oral symptoms and habits were collected by a questionnaire. Results: 81 patients; 54 men and 27 women aged between 20 – 55 years participated in the study. A total of 49 patients; 60.5% had some oral lesion when examined. Oral candidiasis (21 %) and oral melanosis (21%) were the most common lesions, followed by linear gingival erythema, oral hairy leukoplakia, necrotizing ulcerative periodontitis/gingivitis, herpes labialis, parotid gland enlargement and reccurent apthous ulcers. Oral hairy leukoplakia was exclusively seen in men (p=0.018). All six cases of herpes simplex lesion were seen in non - anti retro viral group (p=0.073) while oral candidiasis was commonly noted in the anti retro viral group (p=0.073). Lowering CD4 counts had the strongest association with the prevalence of oral candidasis (p=0.012), pseudomembranous candidiasis (p=0.014) and oral hairy leukoplakia (p= 0.065). Conclusion: This study shows a high prevalence of oral candidiasis, melanosis, linear gingival erythema and oral hairy leukoplakia in the patients. Key words:HIV, AIDS, oral lesions, prevalence.

No abstract

Background: Although the safety and therapeutic efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been extensively evaluated, the safety of CCP donation has not been explored in a multi-institutional context.Study design and methods: Nine blood collection organizations (BCOs) participated in a multi-institutional donor hemovigilance effort to assess the safety of CCP donation. Donor adverse events (DAEs) were defined according to the Standard for Surveillance of Complications Related to Blood Donation, and severity was assessed using the severity grading tool. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine attributes associated with DAE severity. Results: The overall DAE rate was 37.7 per 1000 donations. Repeat apheresis and apheresis-naïve donors experienced adverse event rates of 19.9 and 49.8 per 1000 donations, respectively. Female donors contributed 51.9% of CCP donations with a DAE rate of 49.4 per 1000 donations. The DAE rate for male donors was 27.4 per 1000 donations. Vasovagal reactions accounted for over half of all reported DAEs (51.1%). After adjustment, volume of CCP donated was associated with vasovagal reaction severity (odds ratio [OR] 6.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-17.1). Donor age and donation history were also associated with DAE severity. Considerable differences in DAE types and rates were observed across the participating BCOs despite the use of standardized hemovigilance definitions. Conclusion:The safety of CCP donation appears comparable to that of conventional apheresis plasma donation with similar associated risk factors for DAE types and severity.