Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma is undergoing randomized trials as a potential therapeutic option for COVID-19 infection. Little empirical evidence exists regarding the determination of donor eligibility and experiences with donor selection. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS This prospective study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in New York to select plasma donors for a randomized, double-blind, controlled convalescent plasma trial. Clearance for donation required successful completion of an online questionnaire and an in-person screening visit, which included (a) completion of a Donor Health Questionnaire (DHQ), (b) Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody testing using an immunochromatographic anti- severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test, (c) Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing if <28 days from symptom resolution, and (d) routine blood bank testing. RESULTS After receiving 3093 online questionnaires, 521 individuals presented for in-person screening visits, with 40.1% (n = 209) fully qualifying. Subjects (n = 312) failed to progress due to the following reasons: disqualifying answer from DHQ (n = 30, 9.6%), insufficient antibodies (n = 198, 63.5%), persistent positive PCR tests (n = 14, 4.5%), and blood donation testing labs (n = 70, 22.4%). Importantly, 24.6% and 11.1% of potential donors who reported having PCR-diagnosed infection had low or undetectable SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels, respectively. Surprisingly, 62.9% (56/89) of subjects had positive PCR tests 14-27 days after symptom resolution, with 13 individuals continuing to be PCR positive after 27 days. CONCLUSION It is feasible for a single site to fully qualify a large number of convalescent plasma donors in a short period of time. Among otherwise qualified convalescent plasma donors, we found high rates of low or undetectable antibody levels and many individuals with persistently positive PCR tests.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic affected blood collection in Guangzhou, China. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS This paper included three studies. The observational study reported the trends of blood collection during the epidemic in Guangzhou, China. The cross-sectional survey investigated factors influencing blood donation during the COVID-19 epidemic, and a self-administered questionnaire was given to 1,584 street whole blood donors (SWBDs) who donated during the epidemic. The randomized controlled trial involved 19,491 SWBDs who donated in 2019 but did not donate during the epidemic. Trial participants were randomly assigned to two intervention groups: group 1 completed Questionnaire 1, which contained precautionary measures in response to COVID-19 and other messages about blood donation during the epidemic; and group 2 completed Questionnaire 2, which did not include this information. A control group did not receive any questionnaire. RESULTS As measures implemented, the number of blood donors increased accordingly. Both first-time and repeat SWBDs perceived the same level of blood need and donated blood because it would save lives. SWBDs who completed Questionnaire 1 expressed a greater intention to donate during the epidemic. Enabling blood donors to perceive a higher level of blood need and a lower level of COVID-19 infection risk related to blood donation mobilized experienced SWBDs to donate within three weeks. Intention-to-treat analyses and average-treatment-effect-on-the-treated estimations confirmed that Questionnaire 1 could motivate SWBDs to actually donate blood. CONCLUSION Various measures could ease blood shortage during the COVID-19 epidemic. Administration of Questionnaire 1 could increase blood donations during the epidemic. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Background: Laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (the cause of COVID-19) uses PCR to detect viral RNA (vRNA) in respiratory samples. SARS-CoV-2 RNA has also been detected in other sample types, but there is limited understanding of the clinical or laboratory significance of its detection in blood. Methods: We undertook a systematic literature review to assimilate the evidence for the frequency of vRNA in blood, and to identify associated clinical characteristics. We performed RT-PCR in serum samples from a UK clinical cohort of acute and convalescent COVID-19 cases (n=212), together with convalescent plasma samples collected by NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) (n=462 additional samples). To determine whether PCR-positive blood samples could pose an infection risk, we attempted virus isolation from a subset of RNA-positive samples. Results: We identified 28 relevant studies, reporting SARS-CoV-2 RNA in 0-76% of blood samples; pooled estimate 10% (95%CI 5-18%). Among serum samples from our clinical cohort, 27/212 (12.7%) had SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected by RT-PCR. RNA detection occurred in samples up to day 20 post symptom onset, and was associated with more severe disease (multivariable odds ratio 7.5). Across all samples collected ≥28 days post symptom onset, 0/494 (0%, 95%CI 0-0.7%) had vRNA detected. Among our PCR-positive samples, cycle threshold (ct) values were high (range 33.5-44.8), suggesting low vRNA copy numbers. PCR-positive sera inoculated into cell culture did not produce any cytopathic effect or yield an increase in detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA. There was a relationship between RT-PCR negativity and the presence of total SARS-CoV-2 antibody (p=0.02). Conclusions: vRNA was detectable at low viral loads in a minority of serum samples collected in acute infection, but was not associated with infectious SARS-CoV-2 (within the limitations of the assays used). This work helps to inform biosafety precautions for handling blood products from patients with current or previous COVID-19.