Evaluation of interventions to prevent vasovagal reactions among whole blood donors: rationale and design of a large cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Vasovagal reactions (VVRs) are the most common acute complications of blood donation. Responsible for substantial morbidity, they also reduce the likelihood of repeated donations and are disruptive and costly for blood services. Although blood establishments worldwide have adopted different strategies to prevent VVRs (including water loading and applied muscle tension [AMT]), robust evidence is limited. The Strategies to Improve Donor Experiences (STRIDES) trial aims to reliably assess the impact of four different interventions to prevent VVRs among blood donors. METHODS: STRIDES is a cluster-randomised cross-over/stepped-wedge factorial trial of four interventions to reduce VVRs involving about 1.4 million whole blood donors enrolled from all 73 blood donation sites (mobile teams and donor centres) of National Health Service Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) in England. Each site ("cluster") has been randomly allocated to receive one or more interventions during a 36-month period, using principles of cross-over, stepped-wedge and factorial trial design to assign the sequence of interventions. Each of the four interventions is compared to NHSBT's current practices: (i) 500-ml isotonic drink before donation (vs current 500-ml plain water); (ii) 3-min rest on donation chair after donation (vs current 2 min); (iii) new modified AMT (vs current practice of AMT); and (iv) psychosocial intervention using preparatory materials (vs current practice of nothing). The primary outcome is the number of in-session VVRs with loss of consciousness (i.e. episodes involving loss of consciousness of any duration, with or without additional complications). Secondary outcomes include all in-session VVRs (i.e. with and without loss of consciousness), all delayed VVRs (i.e. those occurring after leaving the venue) and any in-session non-VVR adverse events or reactions. DISCUSSION: The STRIDES trial should yield novel information about interventions, singly and in combination, for the prevention of VVRs, with the aim of generating policy-shaping evidence to help inform blood services to improve donor health, donor experience, and service efficiency. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 10412338. Registration date: October 24, 2019.

Comparison of four methods to measure haemoglobin concentrations in whole blood donors (COMPARE): A diagnostic accuracy study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare four haemoglobin measurement methods in whole blood donors. BACKGROUND: To safeguard donors, blood services measure haemoglobin concentration in advance of each donation. NHS Blood and Transplant's (NHSBT) customary method have been capillary gravimetry (copper sulphate), followed by venous spectrophotometry (HemoCue) for donors failing gravimetry. However, NHSBT's customary method results in 10% of donors being inappropriately bled (ie, with haemoglobin values below the regulatory threshold). METHODS: We compared the following four methods in 21 840 blood donors (aged ≥18 years) recruited from 10 NHSBT centres in England, with the Sysmex XN-2000 haematology analyser, the reference standard: (1) NHSBT's customary method; (2) "post donation" approach, that is, estimating current haemoglobin concentration from that measured by a haematology analyser at a donor's most recent prior donation; (3) "portable haemoglobinometry" (using capillary HemoCue); (4) non-invasive spectrometry (using MBR Haemospect or Orsense NMB200). We assessed sensitivity; specificity; proportion who would have been inappropriately bled, or rejected from donation ("deferred") incorrectly; and test preference. RESULTS: Compared with the reference standard, the methods ranged in test sensitivity from 17.0% (MBR Haemospect) to 79.0% (portable haemoglobinometry) in men, and from 19.0% (MBR Haemospect) to 82.8% (portable haemoglobinometry) in women. For specificity, the methods ranged from 87.2% (MBR Haemospect) to 99.9% (NHSBT's customary method) in men, and from 74.1% (Orsense NMB200) to 99.8% (NHSBT's customary method) in women. The proportion of donors who would have been inappropriately bled ranged from 2.2% in men for portable haemoglobinometry to 18.9% in women for MBR Haemospect. The proportion of donors who would have been deferred incorrectly with haemoglobin concentration above the minimum threshold ranged from 0.1% in men for NHSBT's customary method to 20.3% in women for OrSense. Most donors preferred non-invasive spectrometry. CONCLUSION: In the largest study reporting head-to-head comparisons of four methods to measure haemoglobin prior to blood donation, our results support replacement of NHSBT's customary method with portable haemoglobinometry.

Recruitment and representativeness of blood donors in the INTERVAL randomised trial assessing varying inter-donation intervals.

BACKGROUND: The interpretation of trial results can be helped by understanding how generalisable they are to the target population for which inferences are intended. INTERVAL, a large pragmatic randomised trial of blood donors in England, is assessing the effectiveness and safety of reducing inter-donation intervals. The trial recruited mainly from the blood service's static centres, which collect only about 10 % of whole-blood donations. Hence, the extent to which the trial's participants are representative of the general blood donor population is uncertain. We compare these groups in detail. METHODS: We present the CONSORT flowchart from participant invitation to randomisation in INTERVAL. We compare the characteristics of those eligible and consenting to participate in INTERVAL with the general donor population, using the national blood supply 'PULSE' database for the period of recruitment. We compare the characteristics of specific groups of trial participants recruited from different sources, as well as those who were randomised versus those not randomised. RESULTS: From a total of 540,459 invitations, 48,725 donors were eligible and consented to participate in INTERVAL. The proportion of such donors varied from 1-22 % depending on the source of recruitment. The characteristics of those consenting were similar to those of the general population of 1.3 million donors in terms of ethnicity, blood group distribution and recent deferral rates from blood donation due to low haemoglobin. However, INTERVAL participants included more men (50 % versus 44 %), were slightly older (mean age 43.1 versus 42.3 years), included fewer new donors (3 % versus 22 %) and had given more donations over the previous 2 years (mean 3.3 versus 2.2) than the general donor population. Of the consenting participants, 45,263 (93 %) donors were randomised. Compared to those not randomised, the randomised donors showed qualitatively similar differences to those described above. CONCLUSIONS: There was broad similarity of participants in INTERVAL with the general blood donor population of England, notwithstanding some differences in age, sex and donation history. Any heterogeneity of the trial's results according to these characteristics will need to be studied to ensure its generalisability to the general donor population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24760606 . Registered on 25 January 2012.

The INTERVAL trial to determine whether intervals between blood donations can be safely and acceptably decreased to optimise blood supply: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ageing populations may demand more blood transfusions, but the blood supply could be limited by difficulties in attracting and retaining a decreasing pool of younger donors. One approach to increase blood supply is to collect blood more frequently from existing donors. If more donations could be safely collected in this manner at marginal cost, then it would be of considerable benefit to blood services. National Health Service (NHS) Blood and Transplant in England currently allows men to donate up to every 12 weeks and women to donate up to every 16 weeks. In contrast, some other European countries allow donations as frequently as every 8 weeks for men and every 10 weeks for women. The primary aim of the INTERVAL trial is to determine whether donation intervals can be safely and acceptably decreased to optimise blood supply whilst maintaining the health of donors. METHODS/DESIGN: INTERVAL is a randomised trial of whole blood donors enrolled from all 25 static centres of NHS Blood and Transplant. Recruitment of about 50,000 male and female donors started in June 2012 and was completed in June 2014. Men have been randomly assigned to standard 12-week versus 10-week versus 8-week inter-donation intervals, while women have been assigned to standard 16-week versus 14-week versus 12-week inter-donation intervals. Sex-specific comparisons will be made by intention-to-treat analysis of outcomes assessed after two years of intervention. The primary outcome is the number of blood donations made. A key secondary outcome is donor quality of life, assessed using the Short Form Health Survey. Additional secondary endpoints include the number of 'deferrals' due to low haemoglobin (and other factors), iron status, cognitive function, physical activity, and donor attitudes. A comprehensive health economic analysis will be undertaken. DISCUSSION: The INTERVAL trial should yield novel information about the effect of inter-donation intervals on blood supply, acceptability, and donors' physical and mental well-being. The study will generate scientific evidence to help formulate blood collection policies in England and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24760606, 25 January 2012.