Background

Identifying antibodies to HLA (anti-HLA) by solid-phase assays is used to screen blood donors to mitigate transfusion-related acute lung injury risk. Various cutoffs for detection assays have been proposed in the literature; however, these do not take into consideration lot-to-lot variability of commercially available assays.

Study design and methods

Samples from 93 nontransfused males were tested using five different lots of a multiplex bead-based anti-HLA detection kit. A subset of 17 samples was tested on 5 days using a single lot. An additional 96 samples from donations with varied anti-HLA levels were tested using kits from two different lots. Results were reported as a normalized background (NBG) ratio.

Results

For the 93 nontransfused donors, NBG values generated using the reference lot were significantly higher than those obtained with three of the four comparator lots. However, for the 96 samples with low-, moderate-, and higher-level anti-HLA, Class I (CL-I) values were 1.4 times lower and Class II (CL-II) values were 1.2 times lower using the reference versus comparator lot. For CL-I antibodies the between-lot standard deviation (SD) was 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.60), while the between-day SD was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.08-1.52). Similarly, for CL-II antibodies the between-lot SD was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70-0.95), while the between-day SD was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.43-0.60).

Conclusions

There is interlot variability in the tested HLA detection assay as well as significant bias between lots. It may be reasonable to develop a new cutoff when a new lot is obtained.

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.

Background

Previous 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 methods

Thirteen 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 < .05 statistical significance.

Results

From March 2020 through December 2021, there were a total of 44,274 first-time CCP and 980,201 first-time non-CCP donors. DRR were 14.6% (range 11.9%-43.3%) and 46.6% (range 10.0%-76.9%) for CCP and non-CCP cohorts, respectively. Age over 40 years (Gen X and Boomers), female gender, and White race were each associated with higher return in both donor cohorts (p < .001). For the non-CCP return donor cohort, the Millennial and Boomers were comparable.

Conclusion

The findings demonstrate differences in returning donor trends between the two donor cohorts. The motivation of a first-time CCP donor may be different than that of a non-CCP donor. Further study to improve first-time donor engagement would be worthwhile to expand the donor base with a focus on blood donor diversity emphasizing engagement of underrepresented minorities and younger donors.