Balancing non-discriminatory donor selection and blood safety in the Netherlands: Evaluation of an individual risk assessment of sexual behavior.

BACKGROUND: To better balance the safety of the blood supply and the inclusion of men who have sex with men (MSM), further improvements are needed to the risk management strategy employed in the Netherlands to reduce transfusion-transmissible infections (TTIs). A gender-neutral individual risk assessment could provide a solution by determining donor eligibility based on sexual behaviors known to increase the risk of TTIs. Our objective is to estimate the proportion of blood donors that would be deferred by such an assessment, as well as their discomfort answering such questions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Two surveys were distributed in May 2020 to assess sexual behavior in blood donors in the last 4, 6, and 12 months, as well as their discomfort reporting such information. A combination of both surveys measured the extent to which discomfort was associated with reporting sexual behavior. A high-risk sexual behavior pattern was defined as having had multiple sexual partners and having engaged in anal sex, without consistent condom use. RESULTS: Of all 2177 participating whole blood donors, 0.8% report engaging in high-risk sexual behaviors over the last 4 months and would therefore be ineligible to donate. When accounting for the additional proportion of donors that reported such questions would stop them from donating, 2.0% and 3.2% of female and male donors, respectively, would be lost. DISCUSSION: Gender-neutral eligibility criteria based on high-risk sexual behaviors may reduce the overall number of eligible donors in the Netherlands, but could make blood donation more accessible to a broader group of donors.

Cost-effectiveness of maternal immunization against neonatal invasive Group B Streptococcus in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal invasive Group B Streptococcus (GBS) infection causes considerable disease burden in the Netherlands. Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) prevents early-onset disease (EOD), but has no effect on late-onset disease (LOD). A potential maternal GBS vaccine could prevent both EOD and LOD by conferring immunity in neonates. OBJECTIVE: Explore under which circumstances maternal vaccination against GBS would be cost-effective as an addition to, or replacement for the current risk factor-based IAP prevention strategy in the Netherlands. METHODS: We assessed the maximum cost-effective price per dose of a trivalent (serotypes Ia, Ib, and III) and hexavalent (additional serotypes II, IV, and V) GBS vaccine in addition to, or as a replacement for IAP. To project the prevented costs and disease burden, a decision tree model was developed to reflect neonatal GBS disease and long-term health outcomes among a cohort based on 169,836 live births in the Netherlands in 2017. RESULTS: Under base-case conditions, maternal immunization with a trivalent vaccine would gain 186 QALYs and prevent more than €3.1 million in health care costs when implemented in addition to IAP. Immunization implemented as a replacement for IAP would gain 88 QALYs compared to the current prevention strategy, prevent €1.5 million in health care costs, and avoid potentially ~ 30,000 IAP administrations. The base-case results correspond to a maximum price of €58 per dose (vaccine + administration costs; using a threshold of €20,000/QALY). Expanding the serotype coverage to a hexavalent vaccine would only have a limited additional impact on the cost-effectiveness in the Netherlands. CONCLUSIONS: A maternal GBS vaccine could be cost-effective when implemented in addition to the current risk factor-based IAP prevention strategy in the Netherlands. Discontinuation of IAP would save costs and prevent antibiotic use, however, is projected to lead to a lower health gain compared to vaccination in addition to IAP.