Growing evidence suggests that ABO blood group may play a role in the immunopathogenesis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, with group O individuals less likely to test positive and group A conferring a higher susceptibility to infection and propensity to severe disease. The level of evidence supporting an association between ABO type and SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19 ranges from small observational studies, to genome‐wide‐association‐analyses and country‐level meta‐regression analyses. ABO blood group antigens are oligosaccharides expressed on red cells and other tissues (notably endothelium). There are several hypotheses to explain the differences in SARS‐CoV‐2 infection by ABO type. For example, anti‐A and/or anti‐B antibodies (e.g. present in group O individuals) could bind to corresponding antigens on the viral envelope and contribute to viral neutralization, thereby preventing target cell infection. The SARS‐CoV‐2 virus and SARS‐CoV spike (S) proteins may be bound by anti‐A isoagglutinins (e.g. present in group O and group B individuals), which may block interactions between virus and angiotensin‐converting‐enzyme‐2‐receptor, thereby preventing entry into lung epithelial cells. ABO type‐associated variations in angiotensin‐converting enzyme‐1 activity and levels of von Willebrand factor (VWF) and factor VIII could also influence adverse outcomes, notably in group A individuals who express high VWF levels. In conclusion, group O may be associated with a lower risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and group A may be associated with a higher risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection along with severe disease. However, prospective and mechanistic studies are needed to verify several of the proposed associations. Based on the strength of available studies, there are insufficient data for guiding policy in this regard.

Background and objectives: COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been used, predominantly in high‐income countries (HICs) to treat COVID‐19; available data suggest the safety and efficacy of use. We sought to develop guidance for procurement and use of CCP, particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) for which data are lacking.Materials and methods: A multidisciplinary, geographically representative group of individuals with expertise spanning transfusion medicine, infectious diseases and haematology was tasked with the development of a guidance document for CCP, drawing on expert opinion, survey of group members and review of available evidence. Three subgroups (i.e. donor, product and patient) were established based on self‐identified expertise and interest. Here, the donor and product‐related challenges are summarized and contrasted between HICs and LMICs with a view to guide related practices.Results: The challenges to advance CCP therapy are different between HICs and LMICs. Early challenges in HICs related to recruitment and qualification of sufficient donors to meet the growing demand. Antibody testing also posed a specific obstacle given lack of standardization, variable performance of the assays in use and uncertain interpretation of results. In LMICs, an extant transfusion deficit, suboptimal models of donor recruitment (e.g. reliance on replacement and paid donors), limited laboratory capacity for pre‐donation qualification and operational considerations could impede wide adoption.Conclusion: There has been wide‐scale adoption of CCP in many HICs, which could increase if clinical trials show efficacy of use. By contrast, LMICs, having received little attention, require locally applicable strategies for adoption of CCP.

Background and objectives: Use of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) treatment has gained interest worldwide. However, there is lack of evidence on its dosing, safety and effectiveness. Until data from clinical studies are available to provide solid evidence for worldwide applicable guidelines, there is a need to provide guidance to the transfusion community and researchers on this emergent therapeutic option. This paper aims to identify existing key gaps in current knowledge in the clinical application of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP).Materials and methods: The International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) initiated a multidisciplinary working group with worldwide representation from all six continents with the aim of reviewing existing practices on CCP use from donor, product and patient perspectives. A subgroup of clinical transfusion professionals was formed to draft a document for CCP clinical application to identify the gaps in knowledge in existing literature.Results: Gaps in knowledge were identified in the following main domains: study design, patient eligibility, CCP dose, frequency and timing of CCP administration, parameters to assess response to CCP treatment and long‐term outcome, adverse events and CCP application in less‐resourced countries as well as in paediatrics and neonates.Conclusion: This paper outlines a framework of gaps in the knowledge of clinical deployment of CPP that were identified as being most relevant. Studies to address the identified gaps are required to provide better evidence on the effectiveness and safety of CCP use.

Background and objectives: During the ongoing pandemic of COVID‐19, SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA was detected in plasma and platelet products from asymptomatic blood donors, raising concerns about potential risk of transfusion transmission, also in the context of the current therapeutic approach utilizing plasma from convalescent donors. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of amotosalen/UVA light treatment to inactivate SARS‐CoV‐2 in human plasma to reduce the risk of potential transmission through blood transfusion.Methods: Pools of three whole‐blood‐derived human plasma units (630–650 ml) were inoculated with a clinical SARS‐CoV‐2 isolate. Spiked units were treated with amotosalen/UVA light (INTERCEPT Blood System™) to inactivate SARS‐CoV‐2. Infectious titres and genomic viral load were assessed by plaque assay and real‐time quantitative PCR. Inactivated samples were subject to three successive passages on permissive tissue culture to exclude the presence of replication‐competent viral particles.Results: Inactivation of infectious viral particles in spiked plasma units below the limit of detection was achieved by amotosalen/UVA light treatment with a mean log reduction of >3·32 ± 0·2. Passaging of inactivated samples on permissive tissue showed no viral replication even after 9 days of incubation and three passages, confirming complete inactivation. The treatment also inhibited NAT detection by nucleic acid modification with a mean log reduction of 2·92 ± 0·87 PFU genomic equivalents.Conclusion: Amotosalen/UVA light treatment of SARS‐CoV‐2 spiked human plasma units efficiently and completely inactivated >3·32 ± 0·2 log of SARS‐CoV‐2 infectivity, showing that such treatment could minimize the risk of transfusion‐related SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission.