Premium
The safety of COVID ‐19 convalescent plasma donation: A multi‐institutional donor hemovigilance study
Author(s) -
Cho Joseph H.,
Rajbhandary Srijana,
Buren Nancy L.,
Fung Mark K.,
AlGhafry Maha,
Fridey Joy L.,
Dy Beth A.,
Ziman Alyssa,
Schreiber George B.,
Gammon Richard R.,
Reik Rita,
Stubbs James R.,
Buskirk Camille M.,
Kamel Hany,
Townsend Mary J.,
Zeller Michelle P.,
Gottschall Jerome L.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
transfusion
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.045
H-Index - 132
eISSN - 1537-2995
pISSN - 0041-1132
DOI - 10.1111/trf.16572
Subject(s) - medicine , apheresis , donation , confidence interval , context (archaeology) , adverse effect , covid-19 , odds ratio , emergency medicine , surgery , paleontology , platelet , disease , infectious disease (medical specialty) , economics , biology , economic growth
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.