Next Article in Journal
Non-Penicillin-Susceptible Streptococcus suis Isolated from Humans
Next Article in Special Issue
Plasmepsin-like Aspartyl Proteases in Babesia
Previous Article in Journal
Staphylococcus aureus and Cystic Fibrosis—A Close Relationship. What Can We Learn from Sequencing Studies?
Previous Article in Special Issue
What Babesia microti Is Now
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/pathogens10091176
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Preventing Transfusion-Transmitted Babesiosis

by
Evan M. Bloch
1,*,
Peter J. Krause
2 and
Laura Tonnetti
3
1
Division of Transfusion Medicine, Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA
2
Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
3
Scientific Affairs, American Red Cross, Holland Laboratories, Rockville, MD 21287, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2021, 10(9), 1176; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10091176
Submission received: 31 July 2021 / Revised: 7 September 2021 / Accepted: 8 September 2021 / Published: 13 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Babesia and Human Babesiosis)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Babesia are tick-borne intra-erythrocytic parasites and the causative agents of babesiosis. Babesia, which are readily transfusion transmissible, gained recognition as a major risk to the blood supply, particularly in the United States (US), where Babesia microti is endemic. Many of those infected with Babesia remain asymptomatic and parasitemia may persist for months or even years following infection, such that seemingly healthy blood donors are unaware of their infection. By contrast, transfusion recipients are at high risk of severe babesiosis, accounting for the high morbidity and mortality (~19%) observed in transfusion-transmitted babesiosis (TTB). An increase in cases of tick-borne babesiosis and TTB prompted over a decade-long investment in blood donor surveillance, research, and assay development to quantify and contend with TTB. This culminated in the adoption of regional blood donor testing in the US. We describe the evolution of the response to TTB in the US and offer some insight into the risk of TTB in other countries. Not only has this response advanced blood safety, it has accelerated the development of novel serological and molecular assays that may be applied broadly, affording insight into the global epidemiology and immunopathogenesis of human babesiosis.

1. Introduction

Babesia are tick-borne apicomplexan parasites and the causative pathogens of the clinical illness, babesiosis. Over 100 species of Babesia infect a wide array of vertebrates, yet only six species have been implicated in human infections, of which Babesia microti is overwhelmingly predominant [1]. While B. microti has been reported frequently from the northeastern and northern midwestern United States (US), cases of babesiosis have been described globally [2]. Findings from Babesia surveillance and clinical case reporting suggest a significant increase in B. microti incidence in the United States (US) over the past two decades [3]. Factors that have been postulated for the emergence of Babesia include an increase in the deer population that amplifies the number of ticks, an increase in the human population, and building homes in tick infested areas [3,4,5]. Babesia was historically under-investigated, whereby greater attention (i.e., awareness) following its becoming a notifiable disease in many US states in 2011 likely contributed to the observed increase in cases.
Babesia are transmissible through blood transfusion [6]. The increase in reported cases of naturally acquired and transfusion-transmitted babesiosis (TTB) in the US drew the attention of the blood banking community, thus prompting over a decade of donor surveillance studies, along with the development of laboratory-based diagnostic and donor screening strategies to contend with TTB [7,8]. This culminated in 2019 with the publication of nonbinding recommendations from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in favor of regional blood donor screening for Babesia in the US using an approved molecular assay [9]. Prior to the adoption of laboratory-based screening, B. microti was a leading infectious risk to the US blood supply. The risk of TTB in the US is now low as a result of routine testing for Babesia [10]. We describe the evolution of the response to TTB in the US as a means to contextualize the risk of Babesia in general with a view to guide future research efforts.

2. Epidemiology: Geographic Distribution, Seasonality, and Transmissibility

Babesia species have different geographic distributions. Cases of B. microti have been reported widely, notably in the northeastern and upper midwestern US, but also in other countries [11,12,13,14,15]. Babesia duncani occurs in the far western US [16]. Babesia venatorum and Babesia crassa-like agent have been reported in Europe and northeastern China [17,18,19]. Babesia divergens/Babesia divergens-like agents has been reported in Europe [17] and the United States [20]. Babesia motasi-like agent has been implicated in human cases in Korea [21].

2.1. Blood Donor Surveillance in the US

Beginning in the late 1990’s, a series of surveillance studies were conducted to determine the seroprevalence of Babesia (specifically B. microti), as well as rates of parasitemia (using molecular positivity as a surrogate of active infection) specific to the blood donor population (Table 1). In one of the earliest studies, blood donors (n = 3490) in endemic and nonendemic areas of Connecticut were evaluated for B. microti [22]. In this study, 30 (0.9%) donors were confirmed positive for antibodies against B. microti; over half (10/19) of seropositive donors who were subsequently tested by PCR were shown to be positive [22]. In another study, about a fifth (21%) of 84 seropositive blood donors (IFA titers ≥ 64), who were followed for up to three years in Connecticut and Massachusetts, were found to be parasitemic [23]. Over the course of follow-up, protracted low-level parasitemia was variably and intermittently detectable.

2.2. TTB in the US

Babesia are intraerythrocytic parasites and are readily transmissible through transfusion of any product containing red blood cells. TTB has been reported following transfusion of whole blood, packed red blood cells (RBCs), and even frozen RBCs [6]. Confirmed cases of TTB have not been ascribed to transfusion of apheresis platelets and acellular blood products such as plasma and cryoprecipitate [6]. Rare cases of TTB have been reported after transfusion of whole blood-derived platelets [6]. This may have been due to contamination of red cells and/or the presence of extraerythrocytic parasites [34]. The minimum infectious dose of B. microti that can cause TTB is low (10–100 parasites), based on murine models [35] (Table 2). TTB following transfusion of pediatric red cell aliquots and whole blood-derived platelets suggests that infectivity is high.
To date, over 250 cases of TTB have been reported in the US, almost all (98%) of which were caused by B. microti. There are three reports of TTB due to B. duncani and one due to B. divergens-like parasites [20,41]. The risk of TTB is more widespread in the US than that associated with tick-borne transmission of parasites. Blood is often transfused far from where it is collected. It is not uncommon for blood products to cross state lines, where distribution is driven by clinical need, disproportionately being drawn toward major urban centers. In addition, residents from nonendemic areas may become asymptomatically infected during travel to endemic areas, return home, and donate blood [42]. B. microti can persist for long periods of time, even after standard antimicrobial therapy, whereby asymptomatic individuals may donate long after becoming infected [42,43]. These factors have accounted for cases of TTB in nonendemic states [44,45].
Natural acquisition of Babesia is predominantly seasonal, with peak incidence spanning late spring to early fall, following the life cycle of the tick vector. By contrast, cases of TTB are not strictly confined to peak periods of vector-borne transmission, although they still have a similar time distribution pattern as tick-borne disease, having been reported throughout the year [6,46]. Prolonged storage of blood components enables transfusion of parasitemic blood long after donor acquisition of infection and expands transmission time to include the entire calendar year [8,43]. In addition, the incubation period for development of symptoms after transfusion is as long as six months [6]. Furthermore, donor surveillance studies and prospective screening have also identified parasitemic donations (i.e., positive nucleic acid test) throughout the year, although positive donations still tend to occur from June to October [33].

3. The Risk of Transfusion-Transmitted Babesiosis outside of the US

To date, cases of TTB have been almost exclusively described in the US, with rare exceptions of reports in Japan and Canada (Table 3) [47]. Although it is well established that Babesia is globally ubiquitous, few studies have been undertaken to quantify risk of TTB outside of the US.
A seroprevalence study was undertaken of Tyrolean blood donors (n = 988): 2.1% were IgG-positive against the B. divergens complex and 0.6% were seropositive for B. microti [48]. While both species are causes of human infections, B. divergens has not been found to be transmitted through blood transfusion.
Canada has plausible risk given its proximity to endemic US states, as well as previously described autochthonous cases. In one study, passive surveillance was utilized to guide follow-up active surveillance and intervention [49]. Specifically, ~12,000 ticks that had been submitted by the public were tested for evidence of Babesia infection. Fourteen were found to be B. microti-positive, 10 of which originated in Manitoba. This guided selection of regions for active surveillance (2009–2014) using tick drag sampling. The ticks were tested by PCR: 6/361 (1.7%) were positive in Manitoba and 3/641 (0.5%) were positive in Quebec. None were positive from other sites. Blood donations (July and December, 2013) at selected sites near endemic US regions were tested for antibodies to B. microti. A donor questionnaire was used to enquire about travel-related risk and possible tick exposure. A total of 13,993/ 26,260 (53%) donors were tested, none of whom were found to have antibodies to B. microti. Further, almost half (47%) reported having visited forested areas in Canada and 41% had traveled to the US. During a more extensive study performed in 2018, over 50,000 donations that had been collected near the US border were tested for Babesia nucleic acid by transcription-mediated amplification (TMA). In addition, a subset of 14,758 TMA-nonreactive samples was also screened for B. microti antibodies. The study identified one TMA-reactive donation that had been collected in Winnipeg, Manitoba, the only region in Canada where autochthonous infections have been reported, and four antibody-positive donations in the TMA-negative group [51]. Collectively, these findings suggest that the risk of TTB is low in Canada and that a risk-based deferral for Babesia is not needed at the moment.
A study was conducted in blood donors in China [50]. Again, there is a plausible regional risk given prior reports of human babesiosis in China, as well as in Mongolia, Korea, and Japan [14,54,55,56,57,58]. A total of 1000 donor samples representing 888 whole blood and 112 platelet donations that had been collected in Heilongjiang province were evaluated by IFA against B. microti: 13/1000 (1.3%) were seroreactive.
In Australia, a fatal case of autochthonous babesiosis due to B. microti raised concern pertaining to the national blood supply [11,59]. A total of 7000 donations were tested for anti-B. microti IgG by IFA [52]. Initial reactive samples were subjected to B. microti IgG and IgM (immunoblot), as well as PCR. Five donors were initially reactive by IFA, none of whom were confirmed during repeat testing. All were PCR-negative. In addition, clinically suspected cases of babesiosis (n = 29) were also evaluated; none were B. microti IgG, IgM, or DNA positive.

4. Clinical Presentation

Clinically, about a fifth of Babesia infections in adult immunocompetent hosts are subclinical or manifest as mild flu-like illnesses that are not diagnosed and often clear without treatment [60]. Most patients experience a mild to moderate febrile illness that typically consists of fatigue, headache, chills, and sweats. However, selected patient subsets are at high risk of severe disease with complications. The latter include hemolytic anemia; cardiorespiratory, renal, and/or liver failure; disseminated intravascular coagulopathy; and death [2]. Transfusion recipients harbor many of the risk factors for severe or even fatal babesiosis, such as advanced age, comorbid cardiac or pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency due to asplenia, cancer, HIV/AIDS, or sickle cell disease [2]. This helps to explain the severity of illness and high fatality rate (~19%) associated with transfusion-transmitted babesiosis (TTB) [1,6,60]. Indeed, variability in reported fatality rates from babesiosis, in general, largely reflects a difference in clinical penetrance that is governed by the immune status of the host [61,62,63]. Importantly, transfusion of red blood cells and whole blood is indicated for the treatment of severe, decompensated anemia. Therefore, parasite-induced hemolysis that might otherwise be tolerated in the immunocompetent individual can have dire consequences in the transfusion recipient.

5. Prevention Strategies

5.1. Risk-Based Deferral

Historically, prevention of TTB has relied on donor selection (Table 4). Individuals who reported a history of babesiosis were permanently deferred from blood donation. This proved suboptimal, as evidenced by the number of cases of TTB that escaped detection using this approach. There are a number of reasons why this approach was problematic. For one, Babesia are able to persist chronically in donors without apparent adverse effects [42]. Even when clinically overt, the symptoms of babesiosis in immunocompetent adults are nonspecific. Risk factors for tick exposure are also nonspecific (e.g., outdoor activities, residence in highly endemic states), offering little diagnostic utility [32]. Vector (i.e., tick)-borne transmission is seasonal, largely aligning with the tick life cycle, whereby most infections occur late spring to early fall [2]. By contrast, cases of TTB are less prone to seasonality, given that blood can be stored for prolonged periods. Further, persistent, asymptomatic infection is well described, in some cases being detectable for more than two years following infection [42,43].
A history of tick bites is also a poor predictor of infection. Recall of tick bite is unreliable. One study observed no significant difference in Babesia seroprevalence between those who reported tick bites as compared to those who did not [64]. The investigators postulated that those who report tick exposure are the same group who take precautions against tick bites. Importantly, a high proportion of infections are ascribed to the bites from nymphs rather than adult ticks. Nymphal ticks are the size of poppy seeds, rendering them highly inconspicuous.

5.2. Laboratory-Based Methods for Donor Screening

Laboratory testing is necessary for any meaningful donor screening intervention. Laboratory approaches in routine use for clinical diagnosis of babesiosis (e.g., microscopy of peripheral blood smears and manual indirect fluorescent antibody [IFA] testing) are not suitable for donor screening. Microscopy is neither scalable nor sufficiently sensitive or specific to detect the low level of parasitemia that is often encountered in blood donors. Manual IFA testing is not amenable to high-throughput screening. Molecular testing for Babesia is a more suitable approach for blood donor screening but poses novel challenges. Babesia—unlike the major transfusion-transmitted viruses— is primarily red-cell-based, thereby requiring additional processing steps for optimal sensitivity of detection. Given the large numbers of donors, automation is critical. Therefore, a process needed to be devised to better access the target parasites in the infected red blood cells.

5.3. Serological Testing

The initial approach for evaluating Babesia in the blood donor population was focused on serology (i.e., antibody capture)—specifically of anti-B. microti antibodies— in endemic areas. Experimental research assays were developed for the detection of B. microti. One approach used an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (i.e., targeting the recombinant protein BMN-17 and MN-10) [36]; the other employed a semi-automated IFA test [22]. Although less labor-intensive, the EIA assay showed poor specificity as compared to the semi-automated IFA test. By contrast, IFA testing is sensitive and specific and is still used today to supplement positive nucleic acid test results. The semi-automated version of the IFA test, the arrayed fluorescent immunoassay (AFIA), was applied successfully in a series of donor surveillance studies [8,10]. The combination of AFIA and real-time PCR were the first tests to receive FDA licensure for screening of blood donations, but have since been discontinued for blood screening by the manufacturer [65].
Another antibody test, an enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA), was developed to detect antibodies against B. microti. The assay employed four immunodominant peptides from the BMN1 family that had been shown to be immunodominant and highly specific to B. microti [36]. The assay was capable of detecting both IgM and IgG against B. microti [29]. In a pilot study, 15,000 blood donor samples from high-risk, low-risk, and nonendemic areas of New York State (5,000 each) were tested. Rates of reactivity following application of a revised cutoff were 0.92%, (46/5000), 0.54% (27/5000), and 0.16% (8/5000), respectively [29]. ELISA repeat-reactive samples were also tested by IFA with a concordance rate of 99.34%. Although the ELISA was evaluated in a formal IND (investigational new drug) trial, which was a preliminary step along the regulatory pathway to licensure, the assay was never licensed and is no longer in use.

5.4. Molecular Testing

Molecular testing better detects active infection/parasitemia than antibody testing. This is important because active infection rather than Babesia exposure alone (i.e., antibodies), is required for transmission by blood transfusion. Nevertheless, mitigation strategies for blood donors focused initially on serological methods. Molecular assays (i.e., nucleic acid testing or NAT) have been used since ~1999 to detect the major transfusion-transmissible viruses (e.g., HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C viruses) [66]. Those agents are detectable in plasma. By contrast, Babesia are primarily intraerythrocytic, requiring additional processing of whole blood to ensure adequate target capture.
A variety of PCR research assays, from nested to real-time, have been developed using the 18S ribosomal RNA gene of B. microti as a target and used to determine parasitemia in antibody-positive blood donations during surveillance studies [27,67]. In most cases, these assays have been shown to be sensitive and specific; however, the methodologies used to access the red cell compartment represented a limiting factor for the sensitivity of these assays for blood donor screening. In addition, hemoglobin is also a known inhibitor of PCR [68]. The first real-time PCR assays for donor screening utilized an automated membrane-based isolation system (Taigen Bioscience) and had a limit of detection of 66 piroplasms per mL [8]. Later, larger manufacturers such as Grifols Diagnostics and Roche developed assays, and ultimately obtained FDA licensure [69,70]. These assays are exquisitely sensitive and specific, attaining limits of detection for Babesia as low as 2–3 parasites/mL [66]. Both assays can detect ribosomal DNA or RNA of four major species of Babesia that infect humans (B. microti, B. divergens, B. duncani, and B. venatorum) [38]. The assays can be performed on an automated platform and in pools of 6 (Cobas Babesia, Roche Diagnostics) to 16 samples (Procleix Babesia assay, Grifols diagnostic solutions), allowing for the screening of large numbers of donations. One of the two assays in current use (Cobas Babesia, Roche Diagnostics) employs proprietary whole blood collection tubes containing lysing agents [38].

6. Economic Impact

The cost implications of donor screening have been assessed in three studies undertaken by different groups. The first study examined four different testing strategies as applied to endemic areas: universal antibody screening, universal molecular screening, universal combined testing (antibody/molecular), and recipient-risk-targeted combined (antibody/molecular) testing [71]. The strategies were compared to the then-current standard practice of using a questionnaire. The authors concluded that use of a questionnaire was most wasteful, followed by a risk-targeted combined approach. Universal molecular screening would incur an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $26,000 to $44,000/ quality adjusted life year (QALY) and would serve to prevent 24 to 31 TTB cases/100,000 units transfused, incurring no wastage. The combined approach would be more effective, albeit at a higher cost. By contrast, antibody-based screening was lower in cost, yet was less effective and incurred higher wastage than the molecular options.
The second analysis evaluated the cost utility of a similar repertoire of screening approaches in endemic areas [72]. The results were substantially different. For one, the ICER for combined testing as compared to antibody screening was in excess of $8.7 million, preventing 3.6 cases of TTB per 100,000 units transfused. Universal endemic antibody screening was projected to prevent 3.39 cases of TTB at an ICER of $760,000/QALY when compared to the recipient-risk-targeted strategy. The authors concluded that antibody was the most cost-effective strategy when applying the threshold of cost effectiveness specific to transfusion safety initiatives in the US, i.e., $1 million/QALY.
The third study examined the cost-utility of different screening strategies, both by mode of testing (IFA, ELISA, PCR), as well as extent of geographic inclusion [73]. The authors concluded that even a strategy that was to be confined to highly endemic states would likely exceed the implicit threshold for cost-effectiveness of $1 million per QALY.

7. US Policy

Babesiosis has long been recognized as posing a risk to the US blood supply [9,74]. However, availability of validated tests that were of sufficient level of performance for donor screening, impeded rapid adoption of preventive strategies [75]. In 2019, the US FDA published their recommendations, thus supporting regional molecular screening of blood donors in 14 states and Washington DC using any of the approved assays [9]. Over 95% of all cases of TTB and 99% of clinical cases of babesiosis have occurred in the selected locations. The recommendations also allowed for pathogen reduction (PR) as an alternative to laboratory testing. At the time of this writing, at least one PR technology had been FDA approved for use in plasma and platelets. Of note, neither plasma nor apheresis platelets pose significant—if any—risk of transfusion transmission. A history or babesiosis or a positive test for Babesia previously led to permanent deferral from blood donation. Under the new guidance, donor re-entry is allowable after 2 years in the event that the donor has not had a positive test result for Babesia during the interval, remains negative by requalification using one of the licensed Babesia NAT assays, and meets all other eligibility criteria for blood donation [9].

8. Discussion

Successful strategies to reduce the risk of the major transfusion-transmitted viruses (e.g., HIV, hepatitis B, and C viruses) have rendered blood transfusion remarkably safe, at least in the US and other high-income countries [66,76]. These successful strategies have contributed to the investigation of risk posed by other pathogens (e.g., Babesia) and classes of pathogens (e.g., bacteria) to the blood supply. Implementation of donor screening for Babesia in the US has been a success, having —arguably— removed one of the last major transfusion-transmissible infections, thus serving to advance blood transfusion safety nationally.
Nonetheless, the donor screening policy was long overdue. A potential contributing factor for the delayed development of Babesia blood screening assays was the evolution of T. cruzi screening in the US. T. cruzi, the causative parasite for Chagas disease, is transfusion-transmissible. The agent is endemic to Central and South America, where longstanding public health efforts coupled with serological testing of blood donors have contributed to a decline in cases [77]. Universal donor screening for Chagas disease began in the US in 2006. Following implementation, studies determined the risk in the US to be low. This prompted a revision of the policy at that time to restrict screening to first-time donor testing only. While rational in outlook, that shift in policy impaired commercial investment in testing. The downstream effect may have been the later, tepid support from the major test manufacturers—at least initially—for Babesia testing. Instead, the larger blood collection agencies, such as American Red Cross, Vitalant (then Blood Systems), and New York Blood Center, partnered with small businesses to develop assays.
The path to regulatory approval and development of a screening policy for Babesia took almost a decade. By way of comparison, implementation of routine testing for West Nile Virus in 2003 (lauded as a major success) took less than a year from recognition of transfusion-transmitted disease [78], a timeline bettered by the later adoption of screening for Zika in 2016 within weeks [79,80,81]. Of note, Zika has yet to show any evidence of clinical effect following the rare accounts of possible transfusion transmission. Collectively, this underscores the myriad of factors and competing priorities that guide blood transfusion policy, not all of which are scientific in nature [82].
While there may be an element of closure on TTB in the US, Babesia remain global pathogens. Babesia species have been described in both ticks and animal populations over a wide geographic distribution spanning the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia [2,11,12,13,17,55,58,83]. Outside of the US, perception of risk is low and the US remains the only country to have implemented blood donor screenings [77]. Over the last two decades, only six studies (and two case reports) pertaining to TTB have originated outside of the US (Table 3). Those studies did not find comparable risk to that encountered in the US [49,52,53]. Nonetheless, surveillance is lacking, with a grossly skewed geographic sampling that remains focused on the US. One of the challenges that previously impeded surveillance was the lack of diagnostic tools that could be applied to high-throughput testing. The advent of licensed, high-performance commercial Babesia PCR and TMA assays should enable testing across a more diverse geography, with the caveat that implementation of molecular testing, even for research use, is challenging for low- and middle-income countries [84]. While robust molecular assays may be available, the lack of local expertise and infrastructure may still necessitate the transfer of samples to settings where equipment is available.

9. Conclusions

Babesia are major transfusion-transmissible parasites. A concerted effort by the blood banking community has yielded effective policy and testing strategies that have been integrated into routine donation practices in the US. Nonetheless, these efforts have not been matched elsewhere and deserve greater attention from the international blood banking community. Further, the lessons learned from Babesia (e.g., related to sample preparation, thus enabling automated testing of an intraerythrocytic pathogen) can be applied to Plasmodium (malaria), a related parasite that remains a leading cause of transfusion-associated morbidity in much of the World.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M.B.; data curation, E.M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, E.M.B.; writing—review and editing, E.M.B.; P.J.K. and L.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

EMB is supported by National Heart Lung and Blood Institute 1K23HL151826 (EMB). PJK is supported in part by the Gordon and Llura Gund Foundation.

Conflicts of Interest

EMB reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Terumo BCT, Grifols Diagnostics Solutions, and Abbott Laboratories outside of the submitted work; EMB is a member of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Blood Products Advisory Committee. Any views or opinions that are expressed in this manuscript are that of the author’s, based on his own scientific expertise and professional judgment; they do not necessarily represent the views of either the Blood Products Advisory Committee or the formal position of FDA, and also do not bind or otherwise obligate or commit either the Advisory Committee or the Agency to the views expressed. PJK reports research collaboration with Gold Standard Diagnostics. LT has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. Homer, M.J.; Aguilar-Delfin, I.; Telford, S.R., 3rd; Krause, P.J.; Persing, D.H. Babesiosis. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2000, 13, 451–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Vannier, E.; Krause, P.J. Human babesiosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 366, 2397–2407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Krause, P.J.; Auwaerter, P.G.; Bannuru, R.R.; Branda, J.A.; Falck-Ytter, Y.T.; Lantos, P.M.; Lavergne, V.; Meissner, H.C.; Osani, M.C.; Rips, J.G.; et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA): 2020 Guideline on Diagnosis and Management of Babesiosis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 72, e49–e64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Menis, M.; Whitaker, B.I.; Wernecke, M.; Jiao, Y.; Eder, A.; Kumar, S.; Xu, W.; Liao, J.; Wei, Y.; MaCurdy, T.E.; et al. Babesiosis Occurrence Among United States Medicare Beneficiaries, Ages 65 and Older, During 2006–2017: Overall and by State and County of Residence. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2020, 8, ofaa608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ingram, D.; Crook, T. Rise in Babesiosis Cases, Pennsylvania, USA, 2005–2018. Emerg. Infect. Dis. J. 2020, 26, 1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Herwaldt, B.L.; Linden, J.V.; Bosserman, E.; Young, C.; Olkowska, D.; Wilson, M. Transfusion-associated babesiosis in the United States: A description of cases. Ann. Intern. Med. 2011, 155, 509–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Young, C.; Chawla, A.; Berardi, V.; Padbury, J.; Skowron, G.; Krause, P.J. Preventing transfusion-transmitted babesiosis: Preliminary experience of the first laboratory-based blood donor screening program. Transfusion 2012, 52, 1523–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Moritz, E.D.; Winton, C.S.; Tonnetti, L.; Townsend, R.L.; Berardi, V.P.; Hewins, M.E.; Weeks, K.E.; Dodd, R.Y.; Stramer, S.L. Screening for Babesia microti in the U.S. Blood Supply. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 2236–2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. FDA. Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Transfusion-Transmitted Babesiosis. 2019. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/recommendations-reducing-risk-transfusion-transmitted-babesiosis (accessed on 5 September 2021).
  10. Tonnetti, L.; Townsend, R.L.; Deisting, B.M.; Haynes, J.M.; Dodd, R.Y.; Stramer, S.L. The impact of Babesia microti blood donation screening. Transfusion 2019, 59, 593–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Senanayake, S.N.; Paparini, A.; Latimer, M.; Andriolo, K.; Dasilva, A.J.; Wilson, H.; Xayavong, M.V.; Collignon, P.J.; Jeans, P.; Irwin, P.J. First report of human babesiosis in Australia. Med. J. Aust. 2012, 196, 350–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Peniche-Lara, G.; Balmaceda, L.; Perez-Osorio, C.; Munoz-Zanzi, C. Human Babesiosis, Yucatan State, Mexico, 2015. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2018, 24, 2061–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Gabrielli, S.; Totino, V.; Macchioni, F.; Zuniga, F.; Rojas, P.; Lara, Y.; Roselli, M.; Bartoloni, A.; Cancrini, G. Human Babesiosis, Bolivia, 2013. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2016, 22, 1445–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Matsui, T.; Inoue, R.; Kajimoto, K.; Tamekane, A.; Okamura, A.; Katayama, Y.; Shimoyama, M.; Chihara, K.; Saito-Ito, A.; Tsuji, M. First documentation of transfusion-associated babesiosis in Japan. Rinsho Ketsueki 2000, 41, 628–634. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hildebrandt, A.; Hunfeld, K.P.; Baier, M.; Krumbholz, A.; Sachse, S.; Lorenzen, T.; Kiehntopf, M.; Fricke, H.J.; Straube, E. First confirmed autochthonous case of human Babesia microti infection in Europe. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2007, 26, 595–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Swei, A.; O’Connor, K.E.; Couper, L.I.; Thekkiniath, J.; Conrad, P.A.; Padgett, K.A.; Burns, J.; Yoshimizu, M.H.; Gonzales, B.; Munk, B.; et al. Evidence for transmission of the zoonotic apicomplexan parasite Babesia duncani by the tick Dermacentor albipictus. Int. J. Parasitol. 2019, 49, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hildebrandt, A.; Gray, J.S.; Hunfeld, K.P. Human babesiosis in Europe: What clinicians need to know. Infection 2013, 41, 1057–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Strasek-Smrdel, K.; Korva, M.; Pal, E.; Rajter, M.; Skvarc, M.; Avsic-Zupanc, T. Case of Babesia crassa-Like Infection, Slovenia, 2014. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2020, 26, 1038–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Jiang, J.F.; Zheng, Y.C.; Jiang, R.R.; Li, H.; Huo, Q.B.; Jiang, B.G.; Sun, Y.; Jia, N.; Wang, Y.W.; Ma, L.; et al. Epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory characteristics of 48 cases of “Babesia venatorum” infection in China: A descriptive study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2015, 15, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Burgess, M.J.; Rosenbaum, E.R.; Pritt, B.S.; Haselow, D.T.; Ferren, K.M.; Alzghoul, B.N.; Rico, J.C.; Sloan, L.M.; Ramanan, P.; Purushothaman, R.; et al. Possible Transfusion-Transmitted Babesia divergens-like/MO-1 Infection in an Arkansas Patient. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2017, 64, 1622–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Hong, S.H.; Kim, S.Y.; Song, B.G.; Rho, J.R.; Cho, C.R.; Kim, C.N.; Um, T.H.; Kwak, Y.G.; Cho, S.H.; Lee, S.E. Detection and characterization of an emerging type of Babesia sp. similar to Babesia motasi for the first case of human babesiosis and ticks in Korea. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2019, 8, 869–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Leiby, D.A.; Chung, A.P.; Gill, J.E.; Houghton, R.L.; Persing, D.H.; Badon, S.; Cable, R.G. Demonstrable parasitemia among Connecticut blood donors with antibodies to Babesia microti. Transfusion 2005, 45, 1804–1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Leiby, D.A.; Johnson, S.T.; Won, K.Y.; Nace, E.K.; Slemenda, S.B.; Pieniazek, N.J.; Cable, R.G.; Herwaldt, B.L. A longitudinal study of Babesia microti infection in seropositive blood donors. Transfusion 2014, 54, 2217–2225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Johnson, S.T.; Cable, R.G.; Tonnetti, L.; Spencer, B.; Rios, J.; Leiby, D.A. Seroprevalence of Babesia microti in blood donors from Babesia-endemic areas of the northeastern United States: 2000 through 2007. Transfusion 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Johnson, S.T.; Cable, R.G.; Leiby, D.A. Lookback investigations of Babesia microti-seropositive blood donors: Seven-year experience in a Babesia-endemic area. Transfusion 2012, 52, 1509–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tonnetti, L.; Eder, A.F.; Dy, B.; Kennedy, J.; Pisciotto, P.; Benjamin, R.J.; Leiby, D.A. Transfusion-transmitted Babesia microti identified through hemovigilance. Transfusion 2009, 49, 2557–2563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Johnson, S.T.; Van Tassell, E.R.; Tonnetti, L.; Cable, R.G.; Berardi, V.P.; Leiby, D.A. Babesia microti real-time polymerase chain reaction testing of Connecticut blood donors: Potential implications for screening algorithms. Transfusion 2013, 53, 2644–2649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Moritz, E.D.; Winton, C.S.; Johnson, S.T.; Krysztof, D.E.; Townsend, R.L.; Foster, G.A.; Devine, P.; Molloy, P.; Brissette, E.; Berardi, V.P.; et al. Investigational screening for Babesia microti in a large repository of blood donor samples from nonendemic and endemic areas of the United States. Transfusion 2014, 54, 2226–2236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Levin, A.E.; Williamson, P.C.; Erwin, J.L.; Cyrus, S.; Bloch, E.M.; Shaz, B.H.; Kessler, D.; Telford, S.R., 3rd; Krause, P.J.; Wormser, G.P.; et al. Determination of Babesia microti seroprevalence in blood donor populations using an investigational enzyme immunoassay. Transfusion 2014, 54, 2237–2244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Moritz, E.D.; Tonnetti, L.; Hewins, M.E.; Berardi, V.P.; Dodd, R.Y.; Stramer, S.L. Description of 15 DNA-positive and antibody-negative “window-period” blood donations identified during prospective screening for Babesia microti. Transfusion 2017, 57, 1781–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Levin, A.E.; Williamson, P.C.; Bloch, E.M.; Clifford, J.; Cyrus, S.; Shaz, B.H.; Kessler, D.; Gorlin, J.; Erwin, J.L.; Krueger, N.X.; et al. Serologic screening of United States blood donors for Babesia microti using an investigational enzyme immunoassay. Transfusion 2016, 56, 1866–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Bloch, E.M.; Levin, A.E.; Williamson, P.C.; Cyrus, S.; Shaz, B.H.; Kessler, D.; Gorlin, J.; Bruhn, R.; Lee, T.H.; Montalvo, L.; et al. A prospective evaluation of chronic Babesia microti infection in seroreactive blood donors. Transfusion 2016, 56, 1875–1882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tonnetti, L.; Young, C.; Kessler, D.A.; Williamson, P.C.; Reik, R.; Proctor, M.C.; Bres, V.; Deisting, B.; Bakkour, S.; Schneider, W.; et al. Transcription-mediated amplification blood donation screening for Babesia. Transfusion 2020, 60, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pantanowitz, L.; Cannon, M.E. Extracellular Babesia microti parasites. Transfusion 2001, 41, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bakkour, S.; Chafets, D.M.; Wen, L.; Muench, M.O.; Telford, S.R., 3rd; Erwin, J.L.; Levin, A.E.; Self, D.; Bres, V.; Linnen, J.M.; et al. Minimal infectious dose and dynamics of Babesia microti parasitemia in a murine model. Transfusion 2018, 58, 2903–2910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Houghton, R.L.; Homer, M.J.; Reynolds, L.D.; Sleath, P.R.; Lodes, M.J.; Berardi, V.; Leiby, D.A.; Persing, D.H. Identification of Babesia microti-specific immunodominant epitopes and development of a peptide EIA for detection of antibodies in serum. Transfusion 2002, 42, 1488–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bloch, E.M.; Lee, T.H.; Krause, P.J.; Telford, S.R., 3rd; Montalvo, L.; Chafets, D.; Usmani-Brown, S.; Lepore, T.J.; Busch, M.P. Development of a real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for sensitive detection and quantitation of Babesia microti infection. Transfusion 2013, 53, 2299–2306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stanley, J.; Stramer, S.L.; Erickson, Y.; Cruz, J.; Gorlin, J.; Janzen, M.; Rossmann, S.N.; Straus, T.; Albrecht, P.; Pate, L.L.; et al. Detection of Babesia RNA and DNA in whole blood samples from US blood donations. Transfusion 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cursino-Santos, J.R.; Alhassan, A.; Singh, M.; Lobo, C.A. Babesia: Impact of cold storage on the survival and the viability of parasites in blood bags. Transfusion 2014, 54, 585–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Gumber, S.; Nascimento, F.S.; Rogers, K.A.; Bishop, H.S.; Rivera, H.N.; Xayavong, M.V.; Devare, S.G.; Schochetman, G.; Amancha, P.K.; Qvarnstrom, Y.; et al. Experimental transfusion-induced Babesia microti infection: Dynamics of parasitemia and immune responses in a rhesus macaque model. Transfusion 2016, 56, 1508–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Bloch, E.M.; Herwaldt, B.L.; Leiby, D.A.; Shaieb, A.; Herron, R.M.; Chervenak, M.; Reed, W.; Hunter, R.; Ryals, R.; Hagar, W.; et al. The third described case of transfusion-transmitted Babesia duncani. Transfusion 2012, 52, 1517–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bloch, E.M.; Kumar, S.; Krause, P.J. Persistence of Babesia microti Infection in Humans. Pathogens 2019, 8, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Krause, P.J.; Spielman, A.; Telford, S.R., 3rd; Sikand, V.K.; McKay, K.; Christianson, D.; Pollack, R.J.; Brassard, P.; Magera, J.; Ryan, R.; et al. Persistent parasitemia after acute babesiosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 1998, 339, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ngo, V.; Civen, R. Babesiosis acquired through blood transfusion, California, USA. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2009, 15, 785–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Cangelosi, J.J.; Sarvat, B.; Sarria, J.C.; Herwaldt, B.L.; Indrikovs, A.J. Transmission of Babesia microti by blood transfusion in Texas. Vox Sang. 2008, 95, 331–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Tonnetti, L.; Townsend, R.L.; Dodd, R.Y.; Stramer, S.L. Characteristics of transfusion-transmitted Babesia microti, American Red Cross 2010–2017. Transfusion 2019, 59, 2908–2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kain, K.C.; Jassoum, S.B.; Fong, I.W.; Hannach, B. Transfusion-transmitted babesiosis in Ontario: First reported case in Canada. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2001, 164, 1721–1723. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sonnleitner, S.T.; Fritz, J.; Bednarska, M.; Baumgartner, R.; Simeoni, J.; Zelger, R.; Schennach, H.; Lass-Florl, C.; Edelhofer, R.; Pfister, K.; et al. Risk assessment of transfusion-associated babesiosis in Tyrol: Appraisal by seroepidemiology and polymerase chain reaction. Transfusion 2014, 54, 1725–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. O’Brien, S.F.; Delage, G.; Scalia, V.; Lindsay, R.; Bernier, F.; Dubuc, S.; Germain, M.; Pilot, G.; Yi, Q.L.; Fearon, M.A. Seroprevalence of Babesia microti infection in Canadian blood donors. Transfusion 2016, 56, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bloch, E.M.; Yang, Y.; He, M.; Tonnetti, L.; Liu, Y.; Wang, J.; Guo, Y.; Li, H.; Leiby, D.A.; Shan, H.; et al. A pilot serosurvey of Babesia microti in Chinese blood donors. Vox Sang. 2018, 113, 345–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tonnetti, L.; O’Brien, S.F.; Grégoire, Y.; Proctor, M.C.; Drews, S.J.; Delage, G.; Fearon, M.A.; Brès, V.; Linnen, J.M.; Stramer, S.L. Prevalence of Babesia in Canadian blood donors: June–October 2018. Transfusion 2019, 59, 3171–3176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Faddy, H.M.; Rooks, K.M.; Irwin, P.J.; Viennet, E.; Paparini, A.; Seed, C.R.; Stramer, S.L.; Harley, R.J.; Chan, H.T.; Dennington, P.M.; et al. No evidence for widespread Babesia microti transmission in Australia. Transfusion 2019, 59, 2368–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. O’Brien, S.F.; Drews, S.J.; Yi, Q.L.; Bloch, E.M.; Ogden, N.H.; Koffi, J.K.; Lindsay, L.R.; Gregoire, Y.; Delage, G. Risk of transfusion-transmitted Babesia microti in Canada. Transfusion 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Zhou, X.; Li, S.G.; Wang, J.Z.; Huang, J.L.; Zhou, H.J.; Chen, J.H.; Zhou, X.N. Emergence of human babesiosis along the border of China with Myanmar: Detection by PCR and confirmation by sequencing. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2014, 3, e55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhou, X.; Xia, S.; Huang, J.L.; Tambo, E.; Zhuge, H.X.; Zhou, X.N. Human babesiosis, an emerging tick-borne disease in the People’s Republic of China. Parasites Vectors 2014, 7, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Wei, Q.; Tsuji, M.; Zamoto, A.; Kohsaki, M.; Matsui, T.; Shiota, T.; Telford, S.R., 3rd; Ishihara, C. Human babesiosis in Japan: Isolation of Babesia microti-like parasites from an asymptomatic transfusion donor and from a rodent from an area where babesiosis is endemic. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2001, 39, 2178–2183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Hong, S.H.; Anu, D.; Jeong, Y.I.; Abmed, D.; Cho, S.H.; Lee, W.J.; Lee, S.E. Molecular detection and seroprevalence of Babesia microti among stock farmers in Khutul City, Selenge Province, Mongolia. Korean J. Parasitol. 2014, 52, 443–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kim, J.Y.; Cho, S.H.; Joo, H.N.; Tsuji, M.; Cho, S.R.; Park, I.J.; Chung, G.T.; Ju, J.W.; Cheun, H.I.; Lee, H.W.; et al. First case of human babesiosis in Korea: Detection and characterization of a novel type of Babesia sp. (KO1) similar to ovine babesia. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2007, 45, 2084–2087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Paparini, A.; Senanayake, S.N.; Ryan, U.M.; Irwin, P.J. Molecular confirmation of the first autochthonous case of human babesiosis in Australia using a novel primer set for the beta-tubulin gene. Exp. Parasitol. 2014, 141, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Krause, P.J.; McKay, K.; Gadbaw, J.; Christianson, D.; Closter, L.; Lepore, T.; Telford, S.R., 3rd; Sikand, V.; Ryan, R.; Persing, D.; et al. Increasing health burden of human babesiosis in endemic sites. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2003, 68, 431–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mareedu, N.; Schotthoefer, A.M.; Tompkins, J.; Hall, M.C.; Fritsche, T.R.; Frost, H.M. Risk Factors for Severe Infection, Hospitalization, and Prolonged Antimicrobial Therapy in Patients with Babesiosis. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2017, 97, 1218–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rosner, F.; Zarrabi, M.H.; Benach, J.L.; Habicht, G.S. Babesiosis in splenectomized adults. Review of 22 reported cases. Am. J. Med. 1984, 76, 696–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Krause, P.J.; Gewurz, B.E.; Hill, D.; Marty, F.M.; Vannier, E.; Foppa, I.M.; Furman, R.R.; Neuhaus, E.; Skowron, G.; Gupta, S.; et al. Persistent and relapsing babesiosis in immunocompromised patients. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2008, 46, 370–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Leiby, D.A.; Chung, A.P.; Cable, R.G.; Trouern-Trend, J.; McCullough, J.; Homer, M.J.; Reynolds, L.D.; Houghton, R.L.; Lodes, M.J.; Persing, D.H. Relationship between tick bites and the seroprevalence of Babesia microti and Anaplasma phagocytophila (previously Ehrlichia sp.) in blood donors. Transfusion 2002, 42, 1585–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. FDA. March 6, 2018 Approval Letter—Babesia microti AFIA/Babesia. 2018. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines%2C%20blood%20%26%20biologics/published/March-6--2018-Approval-Letter---Babesia-microti-AFIA-Babesia-microti-AFIA-for-Blood-Donor-Screening.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2021).
  66. Busch, M.P.; Bloch, E.M.; Kleinman, S. Prevention of transfusion-transmitted infections. Blood 2019, 133, 1854–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Tonnetti, L.; Thorp, A.M.; Deisting, B.; Bachowski, G.; Johnson, S.T.; Wey, A.R.; Hodges, J.S.; Leiby, D.A.; Mair, D. Babesia microti seroprevalence in Minnesota blood donors. Transfusion 2013, 53, 1698–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Al-Soud, W.A.; Rådström, P. Purification and characterization of PCR-inhibitory components in blood cells. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2001, 39, 485–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. FDA. BLA APPROVAL January 24, 2019. 2019. Available online: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&ApplNo=021083 (accessed on 5 September 2021).
  70. FDA. Cobas Babesia. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cobas-babesia (accessed on 5 September 2021).
  71. Bish, E.K.; Moritz, E.D.; El-Amine, H.; Bish, D.R.; Stramer, S.L. Cost-effectiveness of Babesia microti antibody and nucleic acid blood donation screening using results from prospective investigational studies. Transfusion 2015, 55, 2256–2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Simon, M.S.; Leff, J.A.; Pandya, A.; Cushing, M.; Shaz, B.H.; Calfee, D.P.; Schackman, B.R.; Mushlin, A.I. Cost-effectiveness of blood donor screening for Babesia microti in endemic regions of the United States. Transfusion 2014, 54, 889–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Goodell, A.J.; Bloch, E.M.; Krause, P.J.; Custer, B. Costs, consequences, and cost-effectiveness of strategies for Babesia microti donor screening of the US blood supply. Transfusion 2014, 54, 2245–2257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gubernot, D.M.; Nakhasi, H.L.; Mied, P.A.; Asher, D.M.; Epstein, J.S.; Kumar, S. Transfusion-transmitted babesiosis in the United States: Summary of a workshop. Transfusion 2009, 49, 2759–2771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. FDA. Report of Blood Product Advisory Committee Meeting July 26, 2010. 2010. Available online: https://www.aabb.org/regulatory-and-advocacy/regulatory-affairs/government-advisory-regulatory-meetings/blood-products-advisory-committee/bpac-meeting-100726 (accessed on 5 September 2021).
  76. Dodd, R.Y.; Crowder, L.A.; Haynes, J.M.; Notari, E.P.; Stramer, S.L.; Steele, W.R. Screening Blood Donors for HIV, HCV, and HBV at the American Red Cross: 10-Year Trends in Prevalence, Incidence, and Residual Risk, 2007 to 2016. Transfus. Med. Rev. 2020, 34, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Leiby, D.A.; O’Brien, S.F.; Wendel, S.; Nguyen, M.L.; Delage, G.; Devare, S.G.; Hardiman, A.; Nakhasi, H.L.; Sauleda, S.; Bloch, E.M. International survey on the impact of parasitic infections: Frequency of transmission and current mitigation strategies. Vox Sang. 2019, 114, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Pealer, L.N.; Marfin, A.A.; Petersen, L.R.; Lanciotti, R.S.; Page, P.L.; Stramer, S.L.; Stobierski, M.G.; Signs, K.; Newman, B.; Kapoor, H.; et al. Transmission of West Nile virus through blood transfusion in the United States in 2002. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 349, 1236–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kuehnert, M.J.; Basavaraju, S.V.; Moseley, R.R.; Pate, L.L.; Galel, S.A.; Williamson, P.C.; Busch, M.P.; Alsina, J.O.; Climent-Peris, C.; Marks, P.W.; et al. Screening of Blood Donations for Zika Virus Infection—Puerto Rico, April 3–June 11, 2016. MMWR Morb. Mortal Wkly. Rep. 2016, 65, 627–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Galel, S.A.; Williamson, P.C.; Busch, M.P.; Stanek, D.; Bakkour, S.; Stone, M.; Lu, K.; Jones, S.; Rossmann, S.N.; Pate, L.L.; et al. First Zika-positive donations in the continental United States. Transfusion 2017, 57, 762–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Saa, P.; Proctor, M.; Foster, G.; Krysztof, D.; Winton, C.; Linnen, J.M.; Gao, K.; Brodsky, J.P.; Limberger, R.J.; Dodd, R.Y.; et al. Investigational Testing for Zika Virus among U.S. Blood Donors. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 1778–1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Bloch, E.M.; Ness, P.M.; Tobian, A.A.R.; Sugarman, J. Revisiting Blood Safety Practices Given Emerging Data about Zika Virus. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 1837–1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bloch, E.M.; Kasubi, M.; Levin, A.; Mrango, Z.; Weaver, J.; Munoz, B.; West, S.K. Babesia microti and Malaria Infection in Africa: A Pilot Serosurvey in Kilosa District, Tanzania. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2018, 99, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Weimer, A.; Tagny, C.T.; Tapko, J.B.; Gouws, C.; Tobian, A.A.R.; Ness, P.M.; Bloch, E.M. Blood transfusion safety in sub-Saharan Africa: A literature review of changes and challenges in the 21st century. Transfusion 2019, 59, 412–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Transfusion-transmitted babesiosis: blood donor surveillance and follow-up studies in the United States.
Table 1. Transfusion-transmitted babesiosis: blood donor surveillance and follow-up studies in the United States.
OverviewStudy DesignLocation (s)Year (s) Major FindingReference
Donor surveillance
(research)		3490 donations (1745 each fromendemic and nonendemic areas) were tested for B. microti antibodies using research-based enzyme immunoassay (EIA); supplemental IFA was used to conform EIA+ samples. Selected seropositive samples were evaluated using nested PCR.CT, USA (endemic and nonendemic areas)199930/3490 (0.9%) confirmed as seropositive (n = 24 [1.4%] vs. 6 [0.3%] in endemic and nonendemic areas, respectively).
10/19 (53%) of 19 seropositive donors PCR+.		Leiby et al. Transfusion 2005 [22]
Donor surveillance
(research)		23,304 donations from 17,465 donors were tested by IFA.CT and MA, USA2000–2007267/23,304 (1.1%) seroprevalence. Johnson et al. Transfusion 2009 [24]
Donor surveillance
(research)		Cross-sectional IFA (B. microti IgG) testing of blood donors with PCR testing of seroreactive donors and lookback investigation. CT, USA1999–2005208/17,422 (1.2%) IFA+
26/139 (18.7%) PCR+
8/63 recipients were IFA and/or PCR+.		Johnson et al. Transfusion 2011 [25]
Donor screening and follow-up (research) B. microti IFA (titers ≥ 64)
were monitored up to 3 years for parasitemia by 2 PCR methods and hamster inoculation.		CT and MA, USA2000 to 200418/84 (21.4%) donors parasitemic at follow-up; 9 had >1 specimen with evidence of parasitemia.
Observation of protracted, intermittent, low-level parasitemia.		Leiby et al. Transfusion 2014 [23]
Hemovigilance studyDescription of donor and recipient characteristics of suspected cases of TTB reported to American Red Cross. USA (national)2005 to 2007Eighteen definite or probable B. microtiinfections with 5 fatalities
4/18 (24%).
Nonresident donors had a history of travel to endemic areas.		Tonnetti et al. Transfusion 2009 [26]
Donor surveillance with prospective follow-up
(research)		Cross-sectional surveillance of consenting blood donors using RT-PCR and IFA (B. microti IgG); blood donors in VT (non or low-endemic state) used to establish specificity. Southeast CT, USA
VT, USA		200925/1002 (2.5%) IFA+
3/1002 (0.3%) PCR+ (1 was IFA-negative).
1/1015 (0.1%) Vermont donors was IFA+. 		Johnson et al. Transfusion 2013 [27]
Donor screening (real-time/operational)Selective real-time donor screening with IFA and PCR
units directed to neonates and pediatric sickle cell and thalassemia patients. 		RI, USA2010–201126/2113 (1.23%) representing 1783 blood donors were IFA+.
1 indeterminate PCR result (0.05%).
No cases of TTB (vs. 7 cases of TTB out of 6500 unscreened units in targeted population using historical controls (2005–2010).		Young et al. Transfusion 2012 [7]
Investigation screening using donor sample repository Paired samples screened by AFIA and PCR.Nonendemic
(AZ and OK), moderately endemic
(MN and WI), and highly endemic (CT and MA)
areas of the USA		2010 to 2011Positivity (Seroreactivity and/or PCR+): Nonendemic: 0.025% (95% CI, 0.00–0.14%);
Midendemic: 0.12% (95% CI, 0.04–0.28%);
High endemic: 0.75% (95% CI, 0.53–1.03%).
AFIA specificity 99.95% and 99.98% at cutoff of 1-in-64 and 1-in-128, respectively. 		Moritz et al. Transfusion 2014 [28]
Validation study of EIA for blood donor screening Retrospective testing of donor samples collected in high-risk endemic, lower-risk endemic, and nonendemic; EIA+ samples further tested by B. microti IFA, PCR, and peripheral blood smear examination.Nonendemic area: AZ
Lower-risk area: Manhattan and Brooklyn, NY High-risk endemic:
Suffolk County, NY		2012EIA repeat-reactive rates:
Nonendemic area: 8/5000 (0.16%);
Lower-risk area 27/5000 (0.54%);
High-risk endemic: 46/5000 (0.92%). 		Levin et al. Transfusion 2014 [29]
Donor screening (real-time/operational)Donor screening with PCR and arrayed fluorescence immunoassay (AFIA).CT, MA, MN, and
WI, USA		2012 to 2016700/220,749 donations screened positive, of which 15 (1 per 14,699 donations) were deemed to be window period infections (PCR+/AFIA-).
Median estimated parasite load in WP donations 350 parasites/mL
3/10 (30%) WP donations
infected hamsters.		Moritz et al. Transfusion 2017 [30]
Donor screening (real-time/operational)Prospective AFIA and quantitative PCR testing of blood donors for B. microti DNA; assessment of parasitemia and infectivity using xeno-inoculation of hamsters. Prospective follow-up of test-reactive donors. CT, MA, MN, and
WI, USA		2012 to 201489,153 blood donation samples tested: 335 (0.38%) confirmed positive and
67/335 (20%) PCR-positive;
9 samples PCR+ but AFIA- (1 in 9906 screened),
27/93 (29%) reactive samples were infectious when inoculated into hamsters.
At 1-year follow-up, DNA clearance had occurred in 86% of test-reactive donors but
antibody seroreversion observed in only 8%. 		Moritz et al. Transfusion 2016 [8]
Real time screening and donor notification Screening blood donors with an investigational B. microti EIA. Repeat-reactive samples were retested by
PCR, blood smear,
IFA, and immunoblot assay. Findings were correlated with samples that had been collected from patients with established diagnoses of babesiosis.		NY, MN, and NM, USA, representing high endemic, moderately endemic, and nonendemic areas, respectively2013Rates of repeat reactivity by EIA:
38/ 13,757 (0.28%) NY;
7/4583 (0.15%) MN;
11/8363 (0.13%) NM.
9/56 EIA repeat-reactive donors positive by PCR.
Assay specificity 99.93%.
Sensitivity 91.1%.		Levin et al. Transfusion 2016 [31]
Donor follow-up studyProspective evaluation of seroreactive blood donors identified during study by Levin et al. [31]. Repeat testing (PCR, IFA, EIA, and blood smear) and completion of clinical questionnaire over the course of ~12 months of follow-up after reactive donation. NY, MN, and NM, USA representing high endemic, moderately endemic and nonendemic areas respectively2013–201437/60 (61.67%) eligible seroreactive donors enrolled, of whom, 20 (54%) completed the 12-month follow-up:
15/20 (75%) were still seroreactive at follow-up.
5/9 PCR+ donors participated in follow-up study:
two remained positive at final follow-up (378 and 404 days).
  • Most seroreactive donors exhibited
    low-level seroreactivity that was stable or waning.
  • Level and pattern of reactivity correlated poorly with PCR positivity.
Bloch et al. Transfusion 2016 [32]
Donor screening (real-time/operational)Donor screening with transcription-mediated amplification (Procleix Babesia assay, Grifols Diagnostic Solutions) in
in 11 endemic states; minipool and individual donor testing evaluated.		11 endemic states, Washington DC and Florida 2017–2018Extended to 201961/176,608 donations confirmed
positive (1 in 2895 donations).
Extended screening 211/496,270 (1 in 2351 donations) confirmed positive.
Detection of positive donations not restricted by season.
6 positive donations identified in individual testing also detected through pooled testing.
100% specificity (no false positives). 		Tonnetti et al. Transfusion 2020 [33]
AFIA—arrayed fluorescent immunoassay (AFIA); IFA—indirect fluorescent antibody; EIA—enzyme immunoassay; PCR—polymerase chain reaction; TTB—transfusion-transmitted babesiosis; NA—not applicable; CT—Connecticut; MA—Massachusetts; MN—Minnesota; WI—Wisconsin; VT—Vermont; AZ—Arizona; NY—New York; NM—New Mexico; OK—Oklahoma; FL—Florida; RI—Rhode Island.
Table
Table 2. Quantification of risk of transfusion transmitted babesiosis and assay development.
Table 2. Quantification of risk of transfusion transmitted babesiosis and assay development.
OverviewStudy DesignMajor FindingReference
Efficacy of detection methodsDevelopment of prototype EIADevelopment of protype EIA using recombinant, immunodominant peptides BMN1-17 and MN-10.69/72 (95.9%) IFA samples detected by EIA.
98/107 (91.5%) positive IgG blot samples detected using EIA.
53/63 (84.1%) positive IgM blot samples detected by EIA.
All 12 PCR positive samples detected. 		Houghton et al. Transfusion 2002 [36]
Development of a real time PCR assay for detection of B. microti Investigational study combining spiking experiments, probit analysis, and performance assessment using clinical sample panels. Spiking experiment positive rate of detection:
445 copies/mL: 100%;
44.5 copies/mL: 97.5%;
4.45 copies/mL: 81%.
The blinded probit analysis: detection rate: 95%: 12.92 parasites/2 mL;
50%: 1.52 parasites/2 mL of whole blood;
Clinical samples: 13 of 21 samples were positive.
Healthy donors: 0 of 48 positives. 		Bloch et al. Transfusion 2013 [37]
Development and validation of cobas Babesia assay (Roche diagnostics) Evaluation of analytical performance of molecular assay (cobas Babesia assay, Roche diagnostics) targeting 4 major species of Babesia using individual and pooled samples
Spiking experiments, cross-reactivity, and donor samples assessed to determine performance characteristics of the assay. 		Limit of detection:
B. microti 6.1 infected red blood cells (iRBC)/mL;
B. duncani 50.2 iRBC/mL;
B. divergens 26.1 iRBC/mL;
B. venatorum 40.0 iRBC/mL.
Specificity:
ID-NAT: 99.999% (95% CI:99.996, 100);
MP-NAT (6 donations): 100% (95% CI: 99.987, 100). 		Stanley et al. Transfusion 2021 [38]
Parasite persistence in blood productsBabesia tolerance of storage conditionsB. divergens inoculated into blood bags containing
leukoreduced red blood cells (RBCs) and stored at 4 °C
for 0 to 31 days. Parasite viability assessed through interval sampling.		Viability maintained through 31 days of refrigerated storage despite altered morphology, reduction in parasitemia and lag to exponential growth. Cursino-Santos et al. Transfusion 2014 [39]
Animal models for determining the risk of TTB.Immunopathogenesis6 Rhesus macaque monkeys were transfused with either hamster or monkey-passaged B. microti–infected red blood cells to simulate TTBFirst detectable parasitemia 4 days in monkey-passaged cells (vs. 35 days in hamster passaged cells).
Window period (detectable parasitemia by qPCR to detected antibody response): 10 to 17 days.
Multilineage immune activation albeit not NK or Treg cells.		Gumber et al. Transfusion 2016 [40]
Minimum infectious dose and kinetics of parasitemiaMurine model infected with different dilutions of B. microti parasitemic blood.
Responses compared between immunocompetent and immunodeficient mice.		Peak parasitemia: 2 × 107 pRBCs/mL at 2 to 3 weeks and 5 × 108 pRBCs/mL at 6 weeks immunocompetent and immunodeficient, respectively.
Chronic infection: fluctuating parasitemia in immunocompetent mice; high plateau parasitemia in immunodeficient mice.
Minimum infectious dose: 100 parasitized RBCs in immunocompetent mice and 63 parasitized RBCs in immunodeficient mice; able to establish infection in all mice in respective cohorts. 		Bakkour et al. Transfusion 2018 [35]
Abbreviations: IFA—indirect fluorescent antibody; EIA—enzyme immunoassay; PCR—polymerase chain reaction; TTB—transfusion-transmitted babesiosis; IDT—individual donor testing; MP-NAT—minipool nucleic acid testing.
Table
Table 3. Transfusion-transmitted babesiosis: blood donor surveillance and quantification of transfusion-associated risk outside of the United States.
Table 3. Transfusion-transmitted babesiosis: blood donor surveillance and quantification of transfusion-associated risk outside of the United States.
Study DesignOverviewLocation (s)Year (s)Major FindingReference
Case report53 y old female transfused for anemia secondary to gastrointestinal bleeding; found to be due to tumor of small intestine.Ontario, Canada1998Parasites demonstrated on blood smear and diagnosis of B. microti infection confirmed by PCR. Donor implicated (smear-, PCR-, and IFA-positive). The donor had been camping in Cape Cod, Massachusetts (USA)Kain, et al. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2001 [47]
Case report40 y old male transfused for gastric bleeding; 1 month later the patient was investigated for fever and hemolysis.Japan1998–1999Parasites demonstrated on blood smear and diagnosis of B. microti infection confirmed by PCR. Donor implicated. Matsui et al. Rinsho Ketsueki 2000 [14]
Pilot serosurveyRetrospective IFA screening for B. divergens and B. microti IgG antibodies.North and East Tyrol, AustriaNot statedTotal of 988 blood donors screened (cut-off titer 128).
21/988 (2.1%) seroreactive for IgG antibodies against B. divergens.
5/988 (0.6%) reactive against B. microti. 		Sonnleitner et al. Transfusion 2014 [48]
Tick surveillance to guide donor serosurvey Passive surveillance of ticks used to identify regions for tick drag sampling. All ticks were tested for B. microti using PCR. Blood donations from selected sites
(based on tick testing and near-endemic US regions) tested for antibody to B. microti; donors subjected to questionnaire about risk travel and possible tick exposure. 		Southern Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, Canada201313,993/26,260 (53%) donors at the selected
sites tested; none were positive for antibody to B. microti. 41% reported travel to the United States.		O’Brien et al. Transfusion 2016 [49]
Pilot serosurveyRetrospective IFA screening of blood donor samples for B. microti antibodies. Heilongjiang Province, China 2016888 whole blood and 112 platelet donor samples (n = 1000); 13/1000 (1.3%) donors were seroreactive; 0.8% at a titer of 64 and 0.05% at titer of 128.Bloch et al. Vox Sanguinis 2018 [50]
Surveillance studyNAT (TMA) screening of 50,752 blood samples and IFA screening of a subset of TMA-nonreactive samples (14,758). Canadian regions close to US border, including British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia20181/50,752 TMA-reactive;
4/14,758 antibody-positive.		Tonnetti et al. Transfusion 2018 [51]
Pilot serosurvey Retrospective IFA screening of blood donor plasma samples for B. microti IgG antibodies; initially reactive samples were further tested for B. microti IgG and IgM by immunoblot and B. microti DNA by PCR.New South Wales and Queensland, Australia2012–20130 (0%) confirmed positive.
5 initial reactive donors failed to confirm on repeat/confirmatory testing.		Faddy et al. Transfusion 2019 [52]
Risk modelling studyMonte Carlo simulation used to estimate the number and proportion of B. microti infectious red blood cell units in Canada for three scenarios: base, localized incidence, and prevalence from donor data.CanadaN/AExpected NAT-positive donations per year (and clinically significant TTB):
• Base scenario: 0.5 (0.08) (1 every 12.5 years).
• Localized incidence scenario: 0.21(0.04) (about 1 every 25 years).
• Donor study informed scenario: 4.6 (0.81)		O’Brien et al. Transfusion 2021 [53]
Table
Table 4. Approaches to address the risk of TTB.
Table 4. Approaches to address the risk of TTB.
ApproachStrengthsLimitations
Risk-based deferral Low cost
Logistically simple		• Lack of specificity
• High proportion of individuals are asymptomatic and parasitemia may be protracted
• Most are unaware of past or active infection
• Large number of reported cases of TTB in endemic areas
Peripheral blood smear • Direct observation of parasites• Not amenable to high-throughput donor screening
• Low sensitivity
• May lend itself to misdiagnosis, e.g., with Plasmodium
Serology • Relatively low cost • Poor correlation with active parasitemia risks intolerable rates of deferral in highly endemic areas
• Limited cross-reactivity between Babesia species, such that other species may go undetected e.g., B. duncani
• Variable performance of automated antibody tests in use that have largely been confined to the detection of B. microti antibodies
• Rarity of selected species complicates validation of serological assays
Molecular methods• Detectable RNA or DNA is a reasonable correlate of active parasitemia
• Lower rates of reactivity than would be expected with serological testing, thus preventing high rates of donor deferral that would otherwise be encountered with serological testing
• Central to blood donor screening policy in the US
• Highly sensitive and specific, high-throughput licensed assays are available for donor screening; selected assays are also able to detect the major Babesia species using a single assay format
• Enables donor reinstatement following deferral, i.e., after 2 years, if repeat testing is negative, individuals may be permitted to donate
• Able to detect individuals in a pre-seroconversion window period 		• Higher cost than serology
• Imperfect correlate with active parasitemia, i.e., DNA/RNA may remain detectable following treatment or spontaneous resolution
Pathogen reduction • FDA- and EU-approved photochemical inactivation technology is available for use in platelets and plasma; allowable as an alternative to molecular testing
• Collateral benefits of pathogen reduction include efficacy against different classes of pathogens, including bacteria, thus addressing another major infectious risk to blood supply; also effective for prevention of transfusion-associated graft vs. host disease		• Absence of a licensed pathogen reduction technology for red blood cells and whole blood; TTB has not been ascribed to apheresis-collected platelets and plasma
• High cost
• Lower platelet yields as compared to standard platelet products
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bloch, E.M.; Krause, P.J.; Tonnetti, L. Preventing Transfusion-Transmitted Babesiosis. Pathogens 2021, 10, 1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10091176

AMA Style

Bloch EM, Krause PJ, Tonnetti L. Preventing Transfusion-Transmitted Babesiosis. Pathogens. 2021; 10(9):1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10091176

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bloch, Evan M., Peter J. Krause, and Laura Tonnetti. 2021. "Preventing Transfusion-Transmitted Babesiosis" Pathogens 10, no. 9: 1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10091176

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop