To the editor:

Eleven cases of transfusion-transmitted West Nile virus (WNV) infection and associated illness have been reported from 9 blood donors since the introduction of minipool nucleic acid testing (MP-NAT) in 2003.1-3  This number of breakthrough infections is against a background of more than 2800 cases of WNV infection identified in blood donors in the United States through 2010. No cases of transfusion-transmitted WNV have been reported following the transition to individual-donation NAT (ID-NAT) in locations experiencing WNV activity. However, even with the use of ID-NAT,4,5  transfusion transmission is theoretically possible from blood units having low viral loads.1  We report the first case of WNV infection acquired via apheresis granulocyte (granulocyte) transfusion.

A 25-year-old white woman with a history of precursor B-lymphoblastic leukemia was admitted on July 9, 2010, for postchemotherapy fever and found to be neutropenic. Escherichia coli–positive blood cultures were identified and antibiotic therapy initiated. Neutropenia persisted and Candida endocarditis developed. Antifungal therapy was initiated and daily granulocyte transfusions began on August 7. Infectious disease testing results obtained on August 10 revealed that the August 9 granulocyte collection was positive for WNV. On August 25, the patient developed sudden onset of confusion with extremity weakness. A lumbar puncture revealed no malignant cells. CSF was WNV-NAT– and IgM-positive. Intravenous immunoglobulin, hydration, and nutritional support were administered and the patient discharged. The patient was readmitted and died on November 6 from complications of sepsis secondary to febrile neutropenia.

The multi-time donor is a 45-year-old man who received dexamethasone before donation. He was asymptomatic at donation, but subsequently became ill on August 22 with fever, chills, severe fatigue, headache, joint and bone pain, tremor, rash, and difficulty thinking. He was hospitalized on August 26 for treatment of WNV meningitis. His symptoms were consistent with those reported in WNV-infected donors.6  He cleared his WNV infection and seroconverted at follow-up (Table 1).

Table 1

Granulocyte donor WNV infectious disease test results

Sample typeCollection dateWNV RNA TMA S/CO*WNV IgM S/COWNV IgG S/COWNV RNA by PCR in copies/mL
Index donation 8/9/10 29.53 NT NT 700 
Index retention 8/9/10 33.79 < 0.67 < 1.30 3600 
Follow-up 10/18/10 0.02 4.73 3.74 < 5 
Sample typeCollection dateWNV RNA TMA S/CO*WNV IgM S/COWNV IgG S/COWNV RNA by PCR in copies/mL
Index donation 8/9/10 29.53 NT NT 700 
Index retention 8/9/10 33.79 < 0.67 < 1.30 3600 
Follow-up 10/18/10 0.02 4.73 3.74 < 5 

TMA indicates transcription-mediated amplification; S/CO, signal-to-cutoff; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; and NT, not tested.

*

TMA was done using the Gen-Probe/Novartis WNV assay on the TIGRIS automated platform. S/CO ratios of 1.00 or greater indicate a reactive test result.

Antibody testing (IgM and IgG) was performed by Focus Laboratories. S/CO ratios of 0.67 or greater for IgM and 1.30 or greater for IgG indicate a positive test result.

PCR testing was performed by National Genetics Institute using a quantitative assay with a 95% lower limit of detection of 5 copies per milliliter.

Granulocytes must be transfused as soon as possible after collection and thus transfused before completion of infectious-disease testing.7  The collecting facility performed WNV ID-NAT from August 3 through October 11 because of WNV activity in the area, consistent with recommendations in the United States.3  The WNV infecting unit had a high viral load sufficient for detection by MP-NAT. Even though ID-NAT results are available sooner than those from MP-NAT, they were not available before the need for transfusion. The time required for generation of test results by any licensed screening test, including WNV NAT, prevents their availability before the need for transfusion of highly time-sensitive components. This case illustrates the need to evaluate the benefits of granulocyte transfusion for critically ill, neutropenic patients in the face of the rare possibility of WNV transmission during epidemic periods. Health care providers should be aware that granulocytes may transmit WNV, and thus health care providers should consider WNV as a potential cause of neurologic complications after granulocyte transfusion.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Correspondence: Dr Geralyn M. Meny, American Red Cross, Penn-Jersey Region, 700 Spring Garden St, Philadelphia, PA 19123; e-mail: menyg@usa.redcross.org.

1
Montgomery
 
SP
Brown
 
JA
Kuehnert
 
M
et al. 
Transfusion-associated transmission of West Nile virus, United Sates 2003 through 2005.
Transfusion
2006
, vol. 
46
 
12
(pg. 
2038
-
2046
)
2
Kightlinger
 
L
Gorlin
 
J
Kemperman
 
MM
et al. 
West Nile virus transmission through blood transfusion–South Dakota, 2006.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
2007
, vol. 
56
 
4
(pg. 
76
-
79
)
3
Stanley
 
E
Ratard
 
R
Staples
 
JE
et al. 
West Nile virus transmission via organ transplantation and blood transfusion – Louisiana, 2008.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
2009
, vol. 
58
 
45
(pg. 
1263
-
1267
)
4
Stramer
 
SL
Fang
 
CT
Foster
 
GA
Wagner
 
AG
Brodsky
 
JP
Dodd
 
RY
West Nile virus among blood donors in the United States, 2003 and 2004.
N Engl J Med
2005
, vol. 
353
 
5
(pg. 
451
-
459
)
5
Biggerstaff
 
BJ
Petersen
 
LR
A modeling framework for evaluation and comparison of trigger strategies for switching from minipool to individual-donation testing for West Nile virus.
Transfusion
2009
, vol. 
49
 
5
(pg. 
1151
-
1159
)
6
Zou
 
S
Foster
 
GA
Dodd
 
RY
Petersen
 
LR
Stramer
 
SL
West Nile fever characteristics among viremic persons identified through blood donor screening.
J Infect Dis
2010
, vol. 
202
 
9
(pg. 
1354
-
1361
)
7
Price
 
TH
Granulocyte transfusion: current status.
Semin Hematol
2007
, vol. 
44
 
1
(pg. 
15
-
23
)
Sign in via your Institution