Search

BackgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated low first-time donor return rates (DRR) following catastrophic events. Little is known, however, about the influence of demographic factors on the DRR of first-time donors during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the unique motivation of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors as compared to non-CCP donors.Study design and methodsThirteen blood collection organizations submitted deidentified data from first-time CCP and non-CCP donors returning for regular (non-CCP) donations during the pandemic. DRR was calculated as frequencies. Demographic factors associated with returning donors: race/ethnicity, gender, and generation (Gen Z: 19-24, Millennial: 25-40, Gen X: 41-56, and Boomer: ≥57 years old), within the CCP and non-CCP first-time cohorts were compared using chi-square test at p

DescriptionCoronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP.MethodsThese guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21 916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations.Recommendation 1 (outpatient)The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).Recommendation 2 (inpatient)The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.Recommendation 3 (inpatient)The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).Recommendation 4 (inpatient)The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).Recommendation 5 (prophylaxis)The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).Good clinical practice statementCCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.

Background: Transfusion‐transmissible infection (TTI) prevalence among US blood donors has been widely documented. Here we estimate the prevalence of donors presenting with ≥2 TTIs (multiple infections past or present referred to as coinfections) and describe their demographics and associations. Methods: Data from the Transfusion‐Transmissible Infections Monitoring System were compiled for October 2020–September 2023 (3 years). Prevalence per million donations (pmd) was calculated for each TTI coinfection combination with demographic characteristics summarized. The odds of each TTI coinfection combination were estimated using logistic regression. Reactivity by NAT and/or serology (HIV, HBV, and HCV) defined donors as consensus positive (CP) for each infection while serology‐based algorithms defined syphilis CP and the subset with active syphilis infections (ASIs). Results: About 22 million donations were included, with 212 coinfections (9.7 pmd). Around 2% of donations positive for any TTI (n = 10,516) were coinfections. Coinfection prevalence per TTI combination ranged from 0.3 pmd for HIV CP and HCV CP, to 4.3 pmd for HIV CP and syphilis CP. There were high proportions of coinfections from donors who were male, aged 25–54 years, white or black, first time, and residing in the southern US Census Region. The odds of a second TTI occurring in an individual donor with a TTI ranged from 23 (95% CI: 13, 41) times more likely for HBV CP and ASI to 395 (95% CI: 298, 524) times more likely for HIV CP and ASI. Conclusions: Coinfections are relatively uncommon among blood donors in the United States; however, associations exist among HIV, HBV, HCV, and syphilis infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Blood center organizations (BCOs) have traditionally offered two gender choices (male or female) on the donor history questionnaire (DHQ). Our BCO was one of the first in the United States to offer additional options on our DHQ to improve the experience for gender nonconforming donors. Study Design and Methods: Three years of data were analyzed from all blood donation visits between March 2019 and March 2022. Donors were stratified by gender categories and generation as follows: Gen Z, Millennial, Gen X, Boomers, and Silent. First time donor status, donor deferrals and infectious disease rates were evaluated for each category. Results: Donor gender makeup included 127,072 (99.78%) Male/Female (M/F) and 282 (0.22%) Trans/Other (T/O) donors. The return rate for first‐time donors was 36.75% for M/F donors compared to 33.84% for T/O donors. The generational breakdown of our T/O donors is 71.28% Gen Z, 21.99% Millennial, 3.19% Gen X, 3.55% Boomers and none from the Silent Generation. Comparing high risk DHQ deferrals, there were 719 (0.57%) M/F deferrals and 18 (6.38%) T/O deferrals. Disease marker testing resulted in 2314 (0.56%) deferrals of M/F donors compared to 2 (0.41%) T/O deferrals. Conclusion: Increased gender options on the DHQ allowing gender diverse self‐identification enhances inclusivity. Transgender and nonbinary individuals accounted for a minority of donors, most of whom are younger, and have a comparable return rate to M/F donors. Shifts in donor policies can ensure inclusivity of this diverse population and provide an opportunity to expand the base of eligible donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]