OBJECTIVE: To describe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mitigation measures in workplaces of employed US blood donors by industry and work arrangement. METHODS: During May-December 2021, blood donors responded to a survey; we describe the distribution of reported workplace mitigation measures by industry and work arrangement, organized using the hierarchy of controls. RESULTS: Of 53,433 respondents representing 21 industries, ventilation upgrades were reported by 4%-38% of respondents (overall: 20%); telework access ranged from 14%-80% (53% overall). Requiring masks (overall: 84%; range: 40%-94%), physical distancing (77%; 51%-86%), paid leave for illness (70%; 38%-87%), and encouraging vaccination (61%; 33%-80%) were common. Independent workers reported fewer mitigation measures than those in traditional employment settings. CONCLUSIONS: Mitigation measures varied by industry and work arrangement. Some mitigation measures may be challenging to implement or irrelevant in certain industries, supporting the idea that mitigation is not a one-size-fits-all strategy. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Tailored strategies to mitigate workplace risks of disease transmission are vital. Strategies should rely on effective methods for identifying workplace controls (e.g., through the hierarchy of controls) and account for industry-specific characteristics and workplace environments.

IMPORTANCE: Long-term symptoms, lasting more than 4 consecutive weeks after acute COVID-19 disease, are an important consequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Many prior studies have lacked a non-SARS-CoV-2-infected control population to distinguish background prevalence of symptoms from the direct impact of COVID-19 disease. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of long-term physical and mental health symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large population of blood donors based on self-report and serologic test results. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study included American Red Cross blood donors (aged ≥18 years) who were surveyed between February 22 and April 21, 2022, about new long-term symptoms arising after March 2020 and their SARS-CoV-2 infection status. All participants underwent at least 1 serologic test for antinucleocapsid antibodies between June 15, 2020, and December 31, 2021. EXPOSURES: SARS-CoV-2 infection as defined by a self-reported, confirmed acute infection or antinucleocapsid antibody positivity. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: New long-term symptoms since March 2020, including 5 symptom categories (neurologic, gastrointestinal, respiratory and cardiac, mental health, and other). RESULTS: Among 818 361 individuals who received the survey, 272 965 (33.4%) responded, with 238 828 meeting the inclusion criteria (138 576 [58.0%] female; median [IQR] age, 59.0 [47.0-67.0] years). Of the 83 015 individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 43.3% reported new long-term symptoms compared with 22.1% of those without a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. After controlling for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and number of underlying conditions, those with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection had an increased odds of new long-term symptoms compared with those without (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.55; 95% CI, 2.51-2.61). Female sex and a history of chronic conditions were associated with new long-term symptoms. Long-term symptoms in the other category (AOR, 4.14; 95% CI, 4.03-4.25), which included changes in taste or smell, and the respiratory and cardiac symptom categories (AOR, 3.21; 95% CI, 3.12-3.31) were most associated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mental health long-term symptoms were also associated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (AOR, 1.05; 95%, CI, 1.02-1.08). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study's findings suggest that long-term symptoms lasting more than 4 weeks are common in the adult population, but there is a significantly higher prevalence among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Continued efforts to define and track long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 using a control group without infection and serologic information to include those who had asymptomatic or unidentified infections are needed.

The tragedy of transfusion-associated hepatitis and HIV spurred a decades-long overhaul of the regulatory oversight and practice of blood transfusion. Consequent to improved donor selection, testing, process control, clinical transfusion practice and post-transfusion surveillance, transfusion in the United States and other high-income countries is now a very safe medical procedure. Nonetheless, pathogens continue to emerge and threaten the blood supply, highlighting the need for a proactive approach to blood transfusion safety. Blood donor populations and the global transfusion infrastructure are under-utilized resources for the study of infectious diseases. Blood donors are large, demographically diverse subsets of general populations for whom cross-sectional and longitudinal samples are readily accessible for serological and molecular testing. Blood donor collection networks span diverse geographies, including in low- and middle-income countries, where agents, especially zoonotic pathogens, are able to emerge and spread, given limited tools for recognition, surveillance and control. Routine laboratory storage and transportation, coupled with data capture, afford access to rich epidemiological data to assess the epidemiology and pathogenesis of established and emerging infections. Subsequent to the State of the Science in Transfusion Medicine symposium in 2022, our working group (WG), "Emerging Infections: Impact on Blood Science, the Blood Supply, Blood Safety, and Public Health" elected to focus on "leveraging donor populations to study the epidemiology and pathogenesis of transfusion-transmitted and emerging infectious diseases." The 5 landmark studies span (1) the implication of hepatitis C virus in post-transfusion hepatitis, (2) longitudinal evaluation of plasma donors with incident infections, thus informing the development of a widely used staging system for acute HIV infection, (3) explication of the dynamics of early West Nile Virus infection, (4) the deployment of combined molecular and serological donor screening for Babesia microti, to characterize its epidemiology and infectivity and facilitate routine donor screening, and (5) national serosurveillance for SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The studies highlight the interplay between infectious diseases and transfusion medicine, including the imperative to ensure blood transfusion safety and the broader application of blood donor populations to the study of infectious diseases.

BACKGROUND: Individual risk assessment allows donors to be evaluated based on their own behaviors. Study objectives were to assess human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk behaviors in men who have sex with men (MSM) and estimate the proportion of the study population who would not be deferred for higher risk HIV sexual behaviors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Cross-sectional survey and biomarker assessment were conducted in eight U.S. cities. Participants were sexually active MSM interested in blood donation aged 18-39 years, assigned male sex at birth. Participants completed surveys during two study visits to define eligibility, and self-reported sexual and HIV prevention behaviors. Blood was drawn at study visit 1 and tested for HIV and the presence of tenofovir, one of the drugs in oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Associations were assessed between HIV infection status or HIV PrEP use and behaviors, including sex partners, new partners, and anal sex. RESULTS: A total of 1566 MSM completed the visit 1 questionnaire and blood draw and 1197 completed the visit 2 questionnaire. Among 1562 persons without HIV, 789 (50.4%) were not taking PrEP. Of those not taking PrEP, 66.2% reported one sexual partner or no anal sex and 69% reported no new sexual partners or no anal sex with a new partner in the past 3 months. CONCLUSION: The study found that questions were able to identify sexually active, HIV-negative MSM who report lower risk sexual behaviors. About a quarter of enrolled study participants would be potentially eligible blood donors using individual risk assessment questions.

Introduction The REDS-IV-P Epidemiology, Surveillance and Preparedness of the Novel SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic (RESPONSE) seroprevalence study conducted monthly cross-sectional testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on blood donors in six U.S. metropolitan regions to estimate the extent of SARS-COV-2 infections over time.Study Design/Methods During March-August 2020, approximately ≥1,000 serum specimens were collected monthly from each region and tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using a well-validated algorithm. Regional seroprevalence estimates were weighted based on demographic differences with the general population. Seroprevalence was compared with reported COVID-19 case rates over time.Results/Findings For all regions, seroprevalence was <1.0% in March 2020. New York experienced the biggest increase (peak seroprevalence, 15.8 % in May). All other regions experienced modest increases in seroprevalence(1-2% in May-June to 2-4% in July-August). Seroprevalence was higher in younger, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic donors. Temporal increases in donor seroprevalence correlated with reported case rates in each region. In August, 1.3-5.6 estimated cumulative infections (based on seroprevalence data) per COVID-19 case reported to CDC.Conclusion Increases in seroprevalence were found in all regions, with the largest increase in New York. Seroprevalence was higher in non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic blood donors than in non-Hispanic White blood donors. SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing of blood donor samples can be used to estimate the seroprevalence in the general population by region and demographic group. The methods derived from the RESPONSE seroprevalence study served as the basis for expanding SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveillance to all 50 states and Puerto Rico.Summary SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance data from blood donors in 6 US regions were used to estimate population weighted seroprevalence. Seroprevelance rates were higher in case rates. The study was expanded to a national donor serosurveillance program.Disclaimer The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the policy of the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Health and Human Services. Any specific brandnames included in this manuscript are for identification purposes only and are not intended to represent an endorsement by CDC. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authorsand do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe authors were supported by research contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI Contracts HHSN 75N92019D00032 and HHSN 75N92019D00033) as well as with funding support from the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), NIH.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was reviewed by the UCSF Committee for Human Research and determined to meet the definition of research as defined in 46.102(l) but did not involve human subjects based on anonymization of data and routine consent for blood donation testing that includes use of residual samples for research purposes (as defined in 46.103(e)(1) consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy (45 C.F.R. part 46; 21 C.F.R. part 56; 42 U.S.C. p241(d), 5 U.S.C. p552a, 44 U.S.C. p3501)).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a pros ective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data is not being made publicly available for privacy reasons related to federal regulations but a limited dataset may be made available upon request after formal review by NHLBI and CDC's privacy office before release.

Importance: Blood donor selection policies should be evidence-based. Individual risk assessment allows potential donors to be evaluated based on their own behaviors. Objective(s): The Assessing Donor Variability and New Concepts in Eligibility (ADVANCE) study examined behavioral and biomarkers of HIV risk in sexually active men who have sex with men (MSM) to estimate the proportion of the study population who would not be deferred for higher risk HIV sexual behaviors and might be eligible to donate. Design(s): A cross-sectional assessment of sexually active MSM interested in blood donation. Setting(s): An 8-city study of MSM aged 18 - 39 years assigned male sex at birth. Interventions or Exposures: Participants completed surveys during 2 study visits to define eligibility, self-reported sexual and HIV prevention behaviors. Blood was drawn at study visit 1 and tested for HIV and the presence of tenofovir, 1 of the drugs in oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Main Outcomes and Measures: Associations between HIV infection status or HIV PrEP use and self-reported HIV risk behaviors, including number of male sex partners, new partners, and anal sex. Result(s): Among 1788 screened MSM, 1593 were eligible and 1566 completed the visit 1 HIV risk questionnaire and blood draw. A median of 22 days later, 1197 completed the visit 2 follow-up questionnaire. Four individuals tested HIV positive (0.25%). Among HIV-negative participants, 789 (50.4%) reported no PrEP use in the past 3 months. The number of sex partners in the past 3 months was significantly higher among PrEP users versus non-users, as was the number reporting a new male sex partner in the same period. Among HIV-negative, non-PrEP using participants, 66.2% reported only 1 sexual partner or no anal sex and 69% reported no new sexual partners or no anal sex with a new partner in the past 3 months. Conclusion and Relevance: Among sexually active MSM, there are subgroups who self-report no new sexual partners and only 1 sexual partner within the past 3 months. These individuals are likely at lower risk of HIV infection than other MSM and would meet proposed individual risk assessment criteria for blood donation in the U.S. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

Changes in testing behaviors and reporting requirements have hampered the ability to estimate the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 incidence (1). Hybrid immunity (immunity derived from both previous infection and vaccination) has been reported to provide better protection than that from infection or vaccination alone (2). To estimate the incidence of infection and the prevalence of infection- or vaccination-induced antibodies (or both), data from a nationwide, longitudinal cohort of blood donors were analyzed. During the second quarter of 2021 (April-June), an estimated 68.4% of persons aged ≥16 years had infection- or vaccination-induced SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, including 47.5% from vaccination alone, 12.0% from infection alone, and 8.9% from both. By the third quarter of 2022 (July-September), 96.4% had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from previous infection or vaccination, including 22.6% from infection alone and 26.1% from vaccination alone; 47.7% had hybrid immunity. Prevalence of hybrid immunity was lowest among persons aged ≥65 years (36.9%), the group with the highest risk for severe disease if infected, and was highest among those aged 16-29 years (59.6%). Low prevalence of infection-induced and hybrid immunity among older adults reflects the success of public health infection prevention efforts while also highlighting the importance of older adults staying up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, including at least 1 bivalent dose.*(,)(†).

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the U.S. by occupation. We identified occupations at higher risk for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as defined by the presence of infection-induced antibodies among U.S. blood donors. METHODS: Using a nested case-control study design, blood donors during May-December 2021 with anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) testing were sent an electronic survey on employment status, vaccination, and occupation. The association between previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and occupation-specific in-person work was estimated using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for sex, age, month of donation, race/ethnicity, education, vaccination, and telework. RESULTS: Among 85,986 included survey respondents, 9,504 (11.1%) were anti-N reactive. Healthcare support (20.3%), protective service (19.9%), and food preparation and serving related occupations (19.7%) had the highest proportion of prior infection. After adjustment, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with healthcare practitioners (adjusted OR [aOR] 2.10, 95% CI 1.74-2.54) and healthcare support (aOR 1.83, 95% CI 1.39-2.40) occupations compared with computer and mathematical occupations as the referent group. Lack of COVID-19 vaccination (aOR 16.13, 95% CI 15.01-17.34) and never teleworking (aOR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30) were also independently associated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Protective service occupations had the highest proportion of unvaccinated workers (30.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Workers in healthcare, protective services, and food preparation had the highest prevalence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Occupational risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection remained after adjusting for vaccination, telework, and demographic factors. These findings underscore the need for mitigation measures and personal protection in healthcare settings and other workplaces.

BACKGROUND: Chagas disease is a parasitic infection that can insidiously cause non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Given the largely silent nature of this progressive disease, asymptomatic blood donors pose potential blood transfusion risk. Blood donation screening has become an unintentional form of Chagas disease surveillance, with thousands of new cases identified since national surveillance was initiated in 2007. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We recruited T. cruzi-positive blood donors identified from California and Arizona blood centers for confirmatory blood screening and assessment of lifetime infection risk. RESULTS: Among eight suspected cases, we identified four confirmed US autochthonous infections. The current manuscript details the transmission sources, healthcare-seeking behaviors post-blood donation resulting, and clinical course of disease among persons without any history of travel to endemic Latin American countries. DISCUSSION: This manuscript presents four additional US-acquired Chagas disease cases and identifies an opportunity for blood centers to assist in confronting barriers surrounding Chagas disease in the US.

OBJECTIVES: To assess if state-issued nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are associated with reduced rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection as measured through anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) seroprevalence, a proxy for cumulative prior infection that distinguishes seropositivity from vaccination). METHODS: Monthly anti-N seroprevalence during August 1, 2020 - March 30, 2021 was estimated using a nationwide blood donor serosurvey. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we measured the association of seropositivity and state-issued, county-specific NPIs for mask mandates, gathering bans, and bar closures. RESULTS: Compared with individuals living in a county with all three NPIs in place, the odds of having anti-N antibodies were 2.2 (95% CI: 2.0-2.3) times higher for people living in a county that did not have any of the three NPIs, 1.6 (95% CI: 1.5-1.7) times higher for people living in a county that only had a mask mandate and gathering ban policy, and 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3-1.5) times higher for people living in a county that had only a mask mandate. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with studies assessing NPIs relative to COVID-19 incidence and mortality, the presence of NPIs were associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence indicating lower rates of cumulative infections. Multiple NPIs are likely more effective than single NPIs.

BACKGROUND: Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination, independently and combined ("hybrid immunity"), result in partial protection from subsequent infection and strong protection from severe disease. Proportions of the U.S. population that have been infected, vaccinated, or with hybrid immunity remain unclear, posing a challenge for assessing effective pandemic mitigation strategies. METHODS: In this serial cross-sectional study, nationwide blood donor specimens collected during January-December 2021 were tested for spike and nucleocapsid antibodies, and donor COVID-19 vaccination history of ≥1 dose was collected. Monthly seroprevalence induced from SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 vaccination, or both, were estimated. Estimates were weighted to account for demographic differences from the general population, and were compared temporally and by demographic factors. RESULTS: Overall, 1,123,855 blood samples were assayed. From January to December 2021, the weighted percentage of donations with seropositivity due to: vaccination without previous infection increased from 3.5% (95% CI, 3.4%-3.7%) to 64.0%, (95% CI, 63.5%-64.5%); previous infection without vaccination decreased from 15.6% (95% CI, 15.2%-16.0%) to 11.7% (95% CI, 11.4%-12.0%); hybrid immunity increased from 0.7% (95% CI, 0.6%-0.7%) to 18.9% (95% CI, 18.5%-19.3%); and from infection, vaccination, or both increased from 19.8% (95% CI (19.3-20.2) to 94.5% (95% CI, 93.5%-94.0% 0.1%). Infection- and vaccination-induced antibody responses varied significantly by age, race-ethnicity, and region, but not by gender. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate substantial increases in population humoral immunity from SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 vaccination, and hybrid immunity during 2021. These findings are important to consider in future COVID-19 studies and long-term pandemic mitigation efforts.

This cross-sectional study examines monthly blood donations from individuals aged 16 years and older to estimate the population with antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 from infection or vaccination.

IMPORTANCE: People who have been infected with or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 have reduced risk of subsequent infection, but the proportion of people in the US with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from infection or vaccination is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To estimate trends in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence related to infection and vaccination in the US population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a repeated cross-sectional study conducted each month during July 2020 through May 2021, 17 blood collection organizations with blood donations from all 50 US states; Washington, DC; and Puerto Rico were organized into 66 study-specific regions, representing a catchment of 74% of the US population. For each study region, specimens from a median of approximately 2000 blood donors were selected and tested each month; a total of 1 594 363 specimens were initially selected and tested. The final date of blood donation collection was May 31, 2021. EXPOSURE: Calendar time. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of persons with detectable SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid antibodies. Seroprevalence was weighted for demographic differences between the blood donor sample and general population. Infection-induced seroprevalence was defined as the prevalence of the population with both spike and nucleocapsid antibodies. Combined infection- and vaccination-induced seroprevalence was defined as the prevalence of the population with spike antibodies. The seroprevalence estimates were compared with cumulative COVID-19 case report incidence rates. RESULTS: Among 1 443 519 specimens included, 733 052 (50.8%) were from women, 174 842 (12.1%) were from persons aged 16 to 29 years, 292 258 (20.2%) were from persons aged 65 years and older, 36 654 (2.5%) were from non-Hispanic Black persons, and 88 773 (6.1%) were from Hispanic persons. The overall infection-induced SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimate increased from 3.5% (95% CI, 3.2%-3.8%) in July 2020 to 20.2% (95% CI, 19.9%-20.6%) in May 2021; the combined infection- and vaccination-induced seroprevalence estimate in May 2021 was 83.3% (95% CI, 82.9%-83.7%). By May 2021, 2.1 SARS-CoV-2 infections (95% CI, 2.0-2.1) per reported COVID-19 case were estimated to have occurred. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Based on a sample of blood donations in the US from July 2020 through May 2021, vaccine- and infection-induced SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence increased over time and varied by age, race and ethnicity, and geographic region. Despite weighting to adjust for demographic differences, these findings from a national sample of blood donors may not be representative of the entire US population.

INTRODUCTION: The REDS-IV-P Epidemiology, Surveillance and Preparedness of the Novel SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic (RESPONSE) seroprevalence study conducted monthly cross-sectional testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on blood donors in six U.S. metropolitan regions to estimate the extent of SARS-COV-2 infections over time. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: During March-August 2020, approximately ≥1,000 serum specimens were collected monthly from each region and tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using a well-validated algorithm. Regional seroprevalence estimates were weighted based on demographic differences with the general population. Seroprevalence was compared with reported COVID-19 case rates over time. RESULTS/FINDINGS: For all regions, seroprevalence was <1.0% in March 2020. New York experienced the biggest increase (peak seroprevalence, 15.8 % in May). All other regions experienced modest increases in seroprevalence(1-2% in May-June to 2-4% in July-August). Seroprevalence was higher in younger, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic donors. Temporal increases in donor seroprevalence correlated with reported case rates in each region. In August, 1.3-5.6 estimated cumulative infections (based on seroprevalence data) per COVID-19 case reported to CDC. CONCLUSION: Increases in seroprevalence were found in all regions, with the largest increase in New York. Seroprevalence was higher in non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic blood donors than in non-Hispanic White blood donors. SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing of blood donor samples can be used to estimate the seroprevalence in the general population by region and demographic group. The methods derived from the RESPONSE seroprevalence study served as the basis for expanding SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveillance to all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 disease, was first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019, with subsequent worldwide spread. The first U.S. cases were identified in January 2020. METHODS: To determine if SARS-CoV-2 reactive antibodies were present in sera prior to the first identified case in the U.S. on January 19, 2020, residual archived samples from 7,389 routine blood donations collected by the American Red Cross from December 13, 2019 to January 17, 2020, from donors resident in nine states (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin) were tested at CDC for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Specimens reactive by pan-immunoglobulin (pan Ig) enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) against the full spike protein were tested by IgG and IgM ELISAs, microneutralization test, Ortho total Ig S1 ELISA, and receptor binding domain / Ace2 blocking activity assay. RESULTS: Of the 7,389 samples, 106 were reactive by pan Ig. Of these 106 specimens, 90 were available for further testing. Eighty four of 90 had neutralizing activity, 1 had S1 binding activity, and 1 had receptor binding domain / Ace2 blocking activity >50%, suggesting the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies. Donations with reactivity occurred in all nine states. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may have been introduced into the United States prior to January 19, 2020.

BACKGROUND: In fall 2017, 3 solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients from a common donor developed encephalitis within 1 week of transplantation, prompting suspicion of transplant-transmitted infection. Eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV) infection was identified during testing of endomyocardial tissue from the heart recipient. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of the organ donor and transplant recipients and tested serum, whole blood, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissue from the donor and recipients for evidence of EEEV infection by multiple assays. We investigated blood transfusion as a possible source of organ donor infection by testing remaining components and serum specimens from blood donors. We reviewed data from the pretransplant organ donor evaluation and local EEEV surveillance. RESULTS: We found laboratory evidence of recent EEEV infection in all organ recipients and the common donor. Serum collected from the organ donor upon hospital admission tested negative, but subsequent samples obtained prior to organ recovery were positive for EEEV RNA. There was no evidence of EEEV infection among donors of the 8 blood products transfused into the organ donor or in products derived from these donations. Veterinary and mosquito surveillance showed recent EEEV activity in counties nearby the organ donor's county of residence. Neuroinvasive EEEV infection directly contributed to the death of 1 organ recipient and likely contributed to death in another. CONCLUSIONS: Our investigation demonstrated EEEV transmission through SOT. Mosquito-borne transmission of EEEV to the organ donor was the likely source of infection. Clinicians should be aware of EEEV as a cause of transplant-associated encephalitis.

CONTEXT: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) to treat and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV infection are effective tools to help end the HIV epidemic. However, their use could affect HIV transfusion-transmission risk. OBJECTIVES: Three different ART/PrEP prevalence analyses in blood donors were conducted. METHODS: First, blood samples from HIV-positive and a comparison group of infection-nonreactive donors were tested under blind using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for ART. Second, blood donor samples from infection-nonreactive, 18-45 year-old, male, first-time blood donors in six US locations were tested for emtricitabine and tenofovir. Third, in men who have sex with men (MSM) participating in the 2017 CDC National HIV Behavioral Surveillance (NHBS) from five US cities self-reported PrEP use proximate to donation was assessed. FINDINGS: In blind testing, no ART was detected in 300 infection-nonreactive donor samples, but in 299 HIV-confirmed infected donor samples, 46 (15.4%, 95% CI 11.5 - 20.0%) had evidence of ART. Of the 1,494 samples tested from first-time, male donors, 9 (0.6%, 95% CI 0.03 - 1.1%) had tenofovir and emtricitabine. In the NHBS MSM survey, 27 of 591 respondents (4.8%, 95% CI 3.2 - 6.9%) reported donating blood in 2016 or 2017 and PrEP use within the same time frame as blood donation. CONCLUSIONS: Persons who are HIV-positive and taking ART and persons taking PrEP to prevent HIV infection are donating blood. Both situations could lead to increased risk of HIV transfusion transmission if blood screening assays are unable to detect HIV in donations from infected donors.

A kidney transplant patient without known tick exposure developed encephalitis three weeks after transplantation. During the transplant hospitalization, the patient had received a blood transfusion from an asymptomatic donor later discovered to have been infected with Powassan virus. This report describes a probable instance of transfusion-transmitted Powassan virus infection.

BACKGROUND: Since 2000, the reported prevalence of tick-borne spotted fever group rickettsioses (SFGR) has increased considerably. We compared the level of antibody reactivity among healthy blood donors from two widely separated regions of the United States, and evaluated the impact of antibody prevalence on public health surveillance in one of these regions. METHODS: Donor serum samples were evaluated by indirect immunofluorescence antibody assay to identify immunoglobulin G antibodies reactive with Rickettsiarickettsii. The Georgia Department of Public Health (GDPH) analyzed characteristics of cases from 2016 surveillance data to evaluate the utility of laboratory surveillance for case assessment. RESULTS: Of the Georgia donors (N = 1,493), 11.1% demonstrated antibody titers reactive with R. rickettsii at titers >/= 64, whereas 6.3% of donors from Oregon and Washington (N =1,511) were seropositive. Most seropositive donors had a titer of 64; only 3.1% (N = 93) of all donors had titers >/= 128. During 2016, GDPH interviewed 243 seropositive case-patients; only 28% (N = 69) met criteria defined in the national SFGR case definition. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that a single IgG antibody titer is an unreliable measure of diagnosis and could inaccurately affect surveillance estimates that define magnitude and clinical characteristics of SFGR.

During May-October 2018, four patients from three states experienced sepsis after transfusion of apheresis platelets contaminated with Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex (ACBC) and Staphylococcus saprophyticus; one patient died. ACBC isolates from patients' blood, transfused platelet residuals, and two environmental samples were closely related by whole genome sequencing. S. saprophyticus isolates from two patients' blood, three transfused platelet residuals, and one hospital environmental sample formed two whole genome sequencing clusters. This whole genome sequencing analysis indicated a potential common source of bacterial contamination; investigation into the contamination source continues. All platelet donations were collected using apheresis cell separator machines and collection sets from the same manufacturer; two of three collection sets were from the same lot. One implicated platelet unit had been treated with pathogen-inactivation technology, and two had tested negative with a rapid bacterial detection device after negative primary culture. Because platelets are usually stored at room temperature, bacteria in contaminated platelet units can proliferate to clinically relevant levels by the time of transfusion. Clinicians should monitor for sepsis after platelet transfusions even after implementation of bacterial contamination mitigation strategies. Recognizing adverse transfusion reactions and reporting to the platelet supplier and hemovigilance systems is crucial for public health practitioners to detect and prevent sepsis associated with contaminated platelets.

We conducted a serologic survey of 2,430 serum samples collected during 1997-2012 for various studies to determine the prevalence of the hemorrhagic fever virus Ebola virus (EBOV) in equatorial Africa. We screened serum samples for neutralizing antibodies by using a pseudotype microneutralization assay and a newly developed luciferase immunoprecipitation system assay. Specimens seroreactive for EBOV were confirmed by using an ELISA. Our results suggest a serologic prevalence of 2%-3.5% in the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which have reported outbreaks of infection with EBOV. In addition we detected a seroprevalence of 1.3% in southern Cameroon, which indicated a low risk for exposure in this region.

BACKGROUND: Characteristics of US blood donors with recent (RBI) or occult (OBI) hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection are not well defined. METHODS: Donors with RBI and OBI were identified by nucleic acid and serologic testing among 34.4 million donations during 2009-2015. Consenting donors were interviewed and their HBV S-gene sequenced. RESULTS: The overall rate of HBV-infected donors was 7.95 per 100,000; of these, 0.35 per 100,000 and 1.70 per 100,000 were RBI and OBI, respectively. RBI (n = 120) and OBI (n = 583) donors constituted 26% of all HBV-infected (n = 2735) donors. Detection of HBV DNA in 92% of OBI donors required individual donation nucleic acid testing. Donors with OBI compared to RBI were older (mean age, 48 vs 39 years; p < 0.0001) with lower median viral loads (9 vs. 529 IU/mL; p < 0.0001). A higher proportion of OBI than RBI donors were born or resided in an endemic country (39% vs. 5%; p = 0.0078). Seventy-seven percent of all RBI and OBI donors had multiple sex partners, an HBV-risk factor. Of 40 RBI and 10 OBI donors whose S gene was sequenced, 33 (83%) and 6 (60%), respectively, carried HBV subgenotype A2; 18 (55%) and 2 (33%), respectively, shared an identical sequence. Infection with 1 or more putative HBV-immune-escape mutants was identified in 5 (50%) of OBI but no RBI donors. CONCLUSION: RBI and OBI continue to be identified at low rates, confirming the importance of comprehensive HBV DNA screening of US blood donations. HBV-infected donors require referral for care and evaluation and contact tracing; their HBV strains may provide important information on emergent genotypes.

BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been an increase in the number of hepatitis A outbreaks in the United States. Although the presence of hepatitis A virus (HAV) RNA in blood donors is known to be low, HAV antibody prevalence in this population is unknown. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Samples from 5001 US blood donors collected primarily in the midwestern United States in 2015 were tested for the presence of HAV IgG antibodies using chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassays on the ARCHITECT platform (Abbott Laboratories). RESULTS: The overall prevalence of IgG anti-HAV was 60%. Only one specimen was IgM anti-HAV positive, for an incidence of 0.02%. IgG anti-HAV prevalence among donors aged 16 to 19 years was 67%, decreased to 54% among donors aged 40 to 49 years and increased to 70% among donors aged 80 to 93 years. No differences were seen by sex with overall IgG anti-HAV prevalence of 61% and 60% for males and females, respectively. Among the five states (Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, and Missouri) with the highest number of donors tested, IgG anti-HAV prevalence in Missouri (65%) was significantly higher (p <0.01) than that in Illinois (52%) or Kentucky (59%). No other significant differences between states were noted. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the overall high rates of IgG anti-HAV in US blood donors, with the low associated risk of HAV transfusion transmission likely the result of low incidence and effective vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Transfusion-transmitted malaria (TTM) is a rare occurrence with serious consequences for the recipient. A case study is presented as an example of best practices for conducting a TTM investigation. CASE REPORT: A 15-year-old male with a history of sickle cell disease developed fever after a blood transfusion. He was diagnosed with Plasmodium falciparum malaria and was successfully treated. The American Red Cross, New York State Department of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention investigated the eight donors who provided components to the transfusion. The investigation to identify a malaria-positive donor included trace back of donors, serologic methods to identify donor(s) with a history of malaria exposure, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, microsatellite analysis to identify the parasite in a donor and match its genotype to the parasite in the recipient, and reinterview of all donors to clarify malaria risk factors. RESULTS: One donor had evidence of infection with P. falciparum by PCR, elevated antibody titers, and previously undisclosed malaria risk factors. Reinterview revealed that the donor immigrated to the United States from Togo just short of 3 years before the blood donation. The donor was treated for asymptomatic low parasitemia infection. CONCLUSION: This investigation used standard procedures for investigating TTM but also demonstrated the importance of applying sensitive laboratory techniques to identify the infected donor, especially a donor with asymptomatic infection with low parasitemia. Repeat interview of all donors identified as having contributed to the transfused component provides complementary epidemiologic information to confirm the infected donor.

During August 2017, two separate clusters of platelet transfusion-associated bacterial sepsis were reported in Utah and California. In Utah, two patients died after platelet transfusions from the same donation. Clostridium perfringens isolates from one patient's blood, the other patient's platelet bag, and donor skin swabs were highly related by whole genome sequencing (WGS). In California, one patient died after platelet transfusion; Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from the patient's blood and platelet bag residuals and a nontransfused platelet unit were matched using WGS. Investigation revealed no deviations in blood supplier or hospital procedures. Findings in this report highlight that even when following current procedures, the risk for transfusion-related infection and fatality persists, making additional interventions necessary. Clinicians need to be vigilant in monitoring for platelet-transmitted bacterial infections and report adverse reactions to blood suppliers and hemovigilance systems. Blood suppliers and hospitals could consider additional evidence-based bacterial contamination risk mitigation strategies, including pathogen inactivation, rapid detection devices, and modified screening of bacterial culture protocols.

BACKGROUND: Reported hepatitis E virus (HEV) antibody assay performance characteristics are variable. Using a subset of surplus US blood donation samples, we compared assays for detecting anti-HEV immunoglobulin M (Ig)M and IgG or total anti-HEV antibodies. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Samples from 5040 random blood donations, all HEV-RNA negative, collected primarily in the midwestern United States in 2015 were tested for anti-HEV IgM and IgG or total anti-HEV using assays manufactured by Diagnostic Systems, Wantai, and MP Biomedicals. RESULTS: Overall, the percentage of detection for anti-HEV IgG and total anti-HEV was 11.4%, and for anti-HEV IgM was 1.8%. Nine samples were reactive for anti-HEV IgM by all assays, giving a recent infection rate of 0.18%. Anti-HEV IgG/total anti-HEV detection rates increased with age. Interassay agreement was higher among the IgG anti-HEV/total anti-HEV assays (84%) than the IgM assays (22%). Regression analyses of signal-to-cutoff ratios from IgG/total antibody assay were heteroskedastic, indicating no constant variance among these assays, suggesting they may detect different epitopes or were affected by waning or less avid antibodies in the US donor population. CONCLUSIONS: Although similar percentages of IgG anti-HEV/total anti-HEV detection were observed across the three commercial assays, each assay detected a unique sample subpopulation and was heteroskedastic when compared pairwise. Discordance was higher among anti-HEV IgM assays, but a recent HEV infection rate of at least 0.18% was estimated based on assay concordance.

The article by Edwards et al. (1) contained several errors regarding testing, results, and interpretation of results. The authors incorrectly described the testing performed for the cord blood samples. The American Red Cross (ARC) National Testing Laboratory (NTL) (identified as the “American Red Cross National Donor Testing Laboratory” in the article) has never performed indirect hemagglutination assay testing, a method not licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for detection of antibodies to Trypanosoma cruzi. In fact, the laboratory used a combination of testing algorithms during 2007–2014, the period of the study, involving 2 different FDA-licensed screening tests and a combination of research and licensed supplemental tests. Each algorithm had varying positive predictive values, ranging from <10% to >50%. The laboratory algorithm from January 2007 to the end of August 2011 included the FDA-licensed Ortho T. cruzi enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., Raritan, NJ, USA), followed by a research radioimmunoprecipitation assay (RIPA) for supplemental testing of all repeat reactive donations. | | On September 1, 2011, the laboratory began using the FDA-licensed PRISM Chagas chemiluminescent immunoassay (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA) for donor screening, followed by a combination of RIPA and the Ortho EIA for supplemental testing. On July 30, 2012, the laboratory switched from the RIPA to the FDA-licensed Abbott enzyme strip assay (ESA) (Abbott Laboratories) for supplemental testing, maintaining concurrent testing with the Ortho EIA (2). The ARC NTL notified all customers of changes in laboratory testing algorithms.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of active blood donation screening, dengue viruses (DENV) have been implicated in only a limited number of transfusion transmissions worldwide. This study attempted to identify if blood from donors testing negative by an NS1-antigen (Ag) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) but confirmed positive for DENV RNA caused DENV-related disease in recipients during the epidemic years of 2010 to 2012 in Puerto Rico. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Donation aliquots testing negative by an investigational NS1-Ag ELISA were stored frozen and retested retrospectively using a research transcription-mediated amplification assay (TMA) detecting DENV RNA. All RNA-reactive donations were subject to confirmatory RNA and antibody testing. Recipient tracing was conducted for all components manufactured from TMA-reactive components. Medical chart review, recipient interview, and follow-up sampling occurred for 42 recipients transfused with TMA-reactive components. RESULTS: Six of 42 recipients developed new-onset fever in the 2 weeks posttransfusion; three (50%) received RNA confirmed-positive, NS1-Ag-negative red blood cell (RBC) units. One recipient of a high-titer unit (7 × 107 DENV-4 RNA copies/mL) developed severe dengue, and a second recipient had only fever recorded but had a negative sepsis work-up. New fever attributable to DENV infection in a third recipient was confounded by fever potentially attributable to posttransfusion sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: In our retrospective study, NS1-Ag detected 20% of all RNA confirmed-positive donations demonstrating limitations of NS1-Ag ELISA for blood donation screening. We identified one recipient with a clinical syndrome compatible with severe dengue who had received an NS1-Ag-negative but RNA confirmed-positive RBC unit. This investigation illustrates the difficulty in confirming transfusion transmission in dengue-endemic areas among severely ill transfusion recipients.

Identification of a recently acquired viral hepatitis infection among repeat blood donors can be a sentinel event signaling a possible healthcare-associated infection (HAI) in the donor, especially in individuals who did not disclose self-reported behavioral risk factors and were test-negative at prior successful donations. With the 2012 update to the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) acute hepatitis B and hepatitis C surveillance case definitions, asymptomatic individuals who meet the laboratory criteria for these case definitions should be included among the cases reportable to public health authorities (1,2). This report serves as a reminder of the importance of recognizing incident hepatitis infections in blood donors as a possible sentinel event to uncover previous healthcare-associated transmission clusters, and that identification of a hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) nucleic acid test (NAT) confirmed positive result within six months of a NAT negative result (as may be identified in a repeat blood donor) is reportable to public health authorities. Recent data suggest consideration that this six month period be extended to within one year.

Granulomatous amebic encephalitis (GAE) from Balamuthia mandrillaris, a free-living ameba, has a case fatality rate exceeding 90 % among recognized cases in the USA. In August 2010, a GAE cluster occurred following transplantation of infected organs from a previously healthy landscaper in Tucson, AZ, USA, who died from a suspected stroke. As B. mandrillaris is thought to be transmitted through soil, a serologic survey of landscapers and a comparison group of blood donors in southern Arizona was performed. Three (3.6 %) of 83 serum samples from landscapers and 11 (2.5 %) of 441 serum samples from blood donors were seropositive (p = 0.47). On multivariable analysis, county of residence was associated with seropositivity, whereas age, sex, and ethnicity were not. Exposure to B. mandrillaris, previously unexamined in North America, appears to be far more common than GAE in Southern Arizona. Risk factors for disease progression and the ameba's geographic range should be examined.