Worldwide, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a decline in blood donations, between 30% and 70% in some of the most affected countries. In Spain, during the initial eight weeks after the State of Emergency was decreed on 14 March 2020, in the weekly reports of the Health Ministry, an average decrease of 20% was observed between 11 and week 25 compared with the 2018 donation. We aimed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood donations and blood distribution in four autonomous communities, and to explore the evolution of the consumption of blood components (BCs) in ten hospitals of six autonomous communities. We performed a prospective study of grouped cohorts on the donation and distribution of blood in four regional transfusion centers in four autonomous communities in Spain, and a retrospective study of the consumption of blood components in ten hospitals in six autonomous communities. Regarding donations, there was no significant decrease in donations, with differences between autonomous communities, which started between 1 and 15 March 2020 (−11%). The increase in donations in phase II (from 26 May 2020) stands out. Regarding consumption, there was a significant reduction in the consumption of packed red blood cells (RBCs) (24.5%), plasma (45.3%), and platelets (25.3%) in the central period (16 March–10 May). The reduction in the consumption of RBCs was significant in the period from 1–15 March. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the donation and consumption of BCs.

Increased transplant activity calls for improved stem cell collection, especially when peripheral blood is the preferred source of haematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs). Plerixafor is a bicyclam molecule that mobilizes CD34+ cells by reversibly disrupting CXCR4‐CXCL12‐supported HPC retention. Plerixafor is given with granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor (G‐CSF) to help harvest autologous CD34+ cells for transplantation when mobilization with G‐CSF fails. Mobilization protocols with the same doses of plerixafor and G‐CSF have been used off‐label in healthy allogeneic donors, with equal success and scarce side effects, both in adult and paediatric patients. Plerixafor has also been used as a sole mobilization agent. Plerixafor alone or coupled with G‐CSF might lead to harvesting distinct cellular populations conferring improved engraftment properties and increased survival. Those characteristics might make plerixafor an especially attractive mobilization agent, particularly for non‐related donations. However, available data are limited, and long‐term follow‐up is needed to clarify the best scenario for using plerixafor with or without G‐CSF in healthy donors. In this review, we will summarize the evidence supporting this practice, highlighting the practical aspects and providing clues for an expanded use of plerixafor.

Immunosuppression withdrawal after graft failure seems to favor sensitization. A high percentage of calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) and the development of de novo donor specific antibodies (dnDSA) indicate human leukocyte antigen (HLA) sensitization and may hinder the option of retransplantation. There are no established protocols on the immunosuppressive treatment that should be maintained after transplant failure. A retrospective analysis including 77 patients who lost their first renal graft between 1 January 2006–31 December 2015 was performed. Two sera were selected per patient, one immediately prior to graft loss and another one after graft failure. cPRA was calculated by Single Antigen in all patients. It was possible to analyze the development of dnDSA in 73 patients. By multivariate logistic regression analysis, the absence of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) at 6 months after graft failure was related to cPRA > 75% (OR 4.8, CI 95% 1.5–15.0, p = 0.006). The absence of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) at 6 months after graft loss was significantly associated with dnDSA development (OR 23.2, CI 95% 5.3–100.6, p < 0.001). Our results suggest that the absence of CNI at the sixth month after graft loss is a risk factor for sensitization. Therefore, maintenance of an immunosuppressive regimen based on CNI after transplant failure should be considered when a new transplant is planned, since it seems to prevent HLA allosensitization.