Modeling US blood donor deferrals under a policy of individual risk assessment for HIV risk sexual behavior.

BACKGROUND: In May 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released final guidance for blood donor eligibility that recommended the elimination of 3-month deferral for men who have sex with men (MSM) and the related deferral for women who have sex with MSM. In its place, FDA introduced an individual risk assessment policy of asking all presenting blood donors, regardless of sex or gender, if they have had a new partner or more than one sexual partner in the last 3 months and deferring those who also report anal sex (penile-anal intercourse) during this period. We modeled the possible impact of this policy on the US blood donor base. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We developed a computational model to estimate the percentage of blood donors who would be deferred under a policy of individual HIV risk assessment. The model incorporated demographic information about donors and national survey data on HIV risk behaviors and included age and sex distributions and dependencies. RESULTS: Our model estimates that approximately 1.2% of US blood donors would be deferred under the individual HIV risk assessment paradigm. DISCUSSION: The model predicts a relatively minor effect of replacing the time-based deferral for MSM with individual risk-based deferral for sexual behavior. As US blood centers implement this new policy, the effect may be mitigated by donor gains, which warrant further study. The new policy is unlikely to adversely affect the availability of blood and blood components.

Blood donor return behavior in South Africa and the United States before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Studies preceding the COVID-19 pandemic found that slower time-to-return was associated with first-time, deferred, and mobile drive blood donors. How donor return dynamics changed during the COVID-19 pandemic is not well understood. METHODS: We analyzed visits by whole blood donors from 2017 to 2022 in South Africa (SA) and the United States (US) stratified by mobile and fixed environment, first-time and repeat donor status, and pre-COVID19 (before March 2020) and intra-COVID19. We used Kaplan-Meier curves to characterize time-to-return, cumulative incidence functions to analyze switching between donation environments, and Cox proportional hazards models to analyze factors influencing time-to-return. RESULTS: Overall time-to-return was shorter in SA. Pre-COVID19, the proportion of donors returning within a year of becoming eligible was lower for deferred donors in both countries regardless of donation environment and deferral type. Intra-COVID19, the gap between deferred and non-deferred donors widened in the US but narrowed in SA, where efforts to schedule return visits from deferred donors were intensified, particularly for non-hemoglobin-related deferrals. Intra-COVID19, the proportion of donors returning within a year in SA was higher for deferred first-time donors (>81%) than for successful first-time donors (80% at fixed sites; 69% at mobile drives). CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic complicated efforts to recruit new donors and schedule returning visits after completed donations. Concerted efforts to improve time-to-return for deferred donors helped mitigate donation loss in SA during the public health emergency.

The impact of blood donation deferral strategies on the eligibility of men who have sex with men and other sexual risk behavior in Australia.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, a man cannot donate blood if he has had sex with another man within the past 3 months. However, this policy has been criticized as being discriminatory as it does not consider lower risk subgroups, and led to calls for modifications to the policy that more accurately distinguish risk among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We used data from a nationally representative survey to estimate the proportion of GBM aged 18-74 years old who would be eligible to donate under current criteria and other scenarios. RESULTS: Among the 5178 survey participants, 155 (3.0%) were classified as GBM based on survey responses, Among the GBM, 40.2% (95% CI 28.0%-53.7%) were eligible to donate based on current criteria, and 21.0% (95% CI 14.5%-29.5%) were ineligible due to the 3 months deferral alone. Eligibility among GBM, all men, and the population increased as criteria were removed. Under the new Australian plasma donation criteria, 73.6% (95% CI 64.4%-81.1%) of GBM, 68.4% (95% CI 65.5%-71.2%) of all men, and 60.8% (95% CI 58.8%-62.8%) of the full population were estimated to be eligible. Only 16.1% (95% CI 8.6%-28.1%) of GBM knew that the male-to-male sex deferral period is 3 months. DISCUSSION: Changing the deferral criteria and sexual risk evaluation would lead to a higher proportion of GBM being eligible to donate blood. Knowledge of the current GBM deferral period is very low. Improved education about the current criteria and any future changes are required to improve blood donation rates.

Compliance of blood donors in Germany with non-sexual deferral criteria.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In addition to mandatory testing of blood donations, the deferral of donors in the case of various sexual and non-sexual risk exposures ensures the safety of blood products in Germany. The study aimed to quantify non-disclosure of non-sexual risk exposures, as no data are available so far. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an anonymous online survey among whole-blood donors with successful donations between January and March 2020. Data on travel to countries with endemic malaria, recent mild or febrile infections, tattoos or piercings and drug use were collected. We analysed non-compliance in relation to donor demographics by multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Altogether, 5.4% of the donors were non-compliant. Non-disclosure was highest for mild infection with 3.3% of donors, followed by febrile infections (1.4%), travel to malaria endemic countries (0.7%) and body modifications (0.5%). Intravenous drug use was negligible in our study population. Age was a predictor for all investigated risks, with higher prevalence in younger age groups. Prevalence ratios for non-disclosure of body modifications and mild infection were higher in females than males. Donation in blood establishments with mobile services was associated with higher non-disclosure of mild infections. CONCLUSION: The considerable degree of non-compliance in some donor groups reflects the prevalence of risk factors in the underlying population (e.g., body modification) as well as probable tendency to socially desirable responding. Donor education should not focus exclusively on sexual risk behaviour, as undisclosed non-sexual exposures may bear risks for recipients and donors.

Predicting haemoglobin deferral using machine learning models: Can we use the same prediction model across countries?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Personalized donation strategies based on haemoglobin (Hb) prediction models may reduce Hb deferrals and hence costs of donation, meanwhile improving commitment of donors. We previously found that prediction models perform better in validation data with a high Hb deferral rate. We therefore investigate how Hb deferral prediction models perform when exchanged with other blood establishments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Donation data from the past 5 years from random samples of 10,000 donors from Australia, Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands and South Africa were used to fit random forest models for Hb deferral prediction. Trained models were exchanged between blood establishments. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR). Variable importance was assessed using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values. RESULTS: Across the validation datasets and exchanged models, the AUPR ranged from 0.05 to 0.43. Exchanged models performed similarly within validation datasets, irrespective of the origin of the training data. Apart from subtle differences, the importance of most predictor variables was similar in all trained models. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that Hb deferral prediction models trained in different blood establishments perform similarly within different validation datasets, regardless of the deferral rate of their training data. Models learn similar associations in different blood establishments.

The value of genetic data from 665,460 individuals in managing iron deficiency anaemia and suitability to donate blood.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although the genetic determinants of haemoglobin and ferritin have been widely studied, those of the clinically and globally relevant iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) and deferral due to hypohaemoglobinemia (Hb-deferral) are unclear. In this investigation, we aimed to quantify the value of genetic information in predicting IDA and Hb-deferral. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed genetic data from up to 665,460 participants of the FinnGen, Blood Service Biobank and UK Biobank, and used INTERVAL (N = 39,979) for validation. We performed genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of IDA and Hb-deferral and utilized publicly available genetic associations to compute polygenic scores for IDA, ferritin and Hb. We fitted models to estimate the effect sizes of these polygenic risk scores (PRSs) on IDA and Hb-deferral risk while accounting for the individual's age, sex, weight, height, smoking status and blood donation history. RESULTS: Significant variants in GWASs of IDA and Hb-deferral appear to be a small subset of variants associated with ferritin and Hb. Effect sizes of genetic predictors of IDA and Hb-deferral are similar to those of age and weight which are typically used in blood donor management. A total genetic score for Hb-deferral was estimated for each individual. The odds ratio estimate between first decile against that at ninth decile of total genetic score distribution ranged from 1.4 to 2.2. CONCLUSION: The value of genetic data in predicting IDA or suitability to donate blood appears to be on a practically useful level.

New tatt? We're ok with that! Relaxing the tattoo deferral for plasmapheresis donors maintains safety and increases donations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Tattooing is one of the leading donor deferral reasons in Australia. Until September 2020, donors were deferred from all donation types for 4 months after a tattoo. At this time, our guideline changed such that donations of plasma for further manufacture were accepted immediately, provided the tattoo was administered in a licensed or regulated Australian establishment. We examined the effects of this change. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Donors with a tattoo deferral in the 2 years before or after the guideline change were identified and followed up until 3 November 2022. Between the two periods, we compared blood-borne virus (BBV) incidence, donor return, and the number of donors and donations regained after deferral. RESULTS: The incidence of BBV infection in donors after a tattoo deferral was zero in both periods. To exceed a residual risk of 1 in 1 million for hepatitis C virus, 190 donors would need to be infected yearly from a tattoo. Donors returned to donate significantly faster after the change (median return 85 days compared with 278 days). An extra 187 donations per 10,000 person-years of observation were gained, yielding a total of 44,674 additional plasma donations nationally 0-4 months after getting a tattoo. CONCLUSION: Allowing plasma donations immediately post-tattoo resulted in a substantial donation gain with no adverse safety effect. Lifeblood subsequently reduced the deferral for transfusible component donations to 7 days for tattoos in Australian licensed/regulated establishments.

Has the frequency of ABO RhD blood groups in Australian blood donors changed as a result of the removal of the variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease-based deferral?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Until 25 July 2022, Australians who had spent more than 6 months in the United Kingdom or territories between 1980 and 1996 were deferred from blood donation due to the risk of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Removal of this geography-based donor deferral on RhD-negative blood availability has not been reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All donors who donated at least once from 25 July 2022 to 25 July 2023 were included. UK donor status, first-time donor and ABO RhD data were extracted from the National Blood Management System. RESULTS: Data from 566,447 blood donors with a valid ABO RhD result were analysed. Of these, 34,560 were new or returning lapsed donors following removal of the UK donor deferral. The median age [range] in years for all donors was 43 [75] with UK donors being older 53 [70]. There was a higher prevalence of RhD-negative status in UK donors (20.2%) compared with first-time blood donors (15.7%). CONCLUSION: UK donors were generally older, female and more likely to be RhD-negative. Although UK donors provided a boost to RhD-negative blood collections, the overall prevalence of ABO RhD blood groups in the total Australian blood donor panel remained similar to previous estimates.

Suggested blood donor deferral strategy regarding hepatitis B infections in China.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivity in individual immunologic and nucleic acid tests (NAT) tests does not represent the true infectious status of the blood donor. This study discusses the use of confirmatory tests to determine when deferral of blood donors is appropriate. METHODS: HBsAg or HBV NAT reactive samples were confirmed via a neutralisation test. All the HBsAg reactive but neutralisation test negative samples were subjected to further anti-HBc testing. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used to obtain the best threshold value using signal-to-cut-off ratios of two HBsAg enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reagents. RESULTS: Of the 780 HBV reactive samples collected, there were 467 HBsAg reactive but HBV DNA negative samples, of which 65 (13.92%) and 402 (86.08%) were neutralisation test positive and negative, respectively. Of the 402, 91 samples (30% of tested samples) were anti-HBc reactive. HBV DNA positive specimens negative by virus neutralisation were >80% HBcAg positive. A screening strategy was proposed for Chinese blood collection agencies. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that adopting a screening algorithm for deferring HBV reactive blood donors based on HBsAg and NAT testing followed with HBsAg S/CO consideration and HBcAg testing can be both safe and feasible in China.

Clinical Outcome of FFR-Guided Revascularization Strategy of Coronary Lesions: The HALE-BOPP Study.

Background: Recently, questions around the efficacy and effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) have arisen in various clinical settings. Methods: The Clinical Outcome of FFR-guided Revascularization Strategy of Coronary Lesions (HALE-BOPP) study is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, international prospective study enrolling patients who underwent FFR measurement on at least one vessel. In accordance with the decision-making workflow and treatment, the vessels were classified in three subgroups: (i) angio-revascularized, (ii) FFR-revascularized, (iii) FFR-deferred. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of target vessel failure (TVF, cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization). The analysis was carried out at vessel- and patient-level. Results: 1305 patients with 2422 diseased vessels fulfilled the criteria for the present analysis. Wire-related pitfalls and transient adenosine-related side effects occurred in 0.8% (95% CI: 0.4%-1.4%) and 3.3% (95% CI: 2.5%-4.3%) of cases, respectively. In FFR-deferred vessels, the overall incidence rate of TVF was 0.024 (95% CI: 0.019-0.031) lesion/year. After a median follow-up of 3.6 years, the occurrence of TVF was 6%, 7% and 11.7% in FFR-deferred, FFR-revascularized and angio-revascularized vessels, respectively. Compared to angio-revascularized vessels, FFR-guided vessels (both FFR-revascularized and FFR-deferred vessels) showed a lower TVF incidence rate lesion/year (0.029, 95% CI: 0.024-0.034 vs. 0.049, 95% CI: 0.040-0.061 respectively, p = 0.0001). The result was consistent after correction for confounding factors and across subgroups of clinical interest. The patient-level analysis confirmed the lower occurrence of TVF in negative-FFR vs. positive-FFR subgroups. Conclusions: In a large prospective observational study, an FFR-based strategy for the deferral of coronary lesions is a reliable and safe tool, associated with good outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03079739.

Validity of donor-reported iron supplementation practices obtained at the time of donation.

BACKGROUND: Iron supplementation (IS) improves blood donors' iron stores and allows more frequent blood donation. Understanding the accuracy of self-reported IS is helpful for potential application of IS practices to donor eligibility or donation intervals. METHODS: Successful whole blood and red cell apheresis donors completed a survey at donation on the use of select dietary supplements. Respondents reporting use of either iron pills (IP) or multivitamins (MV) were invited by email to complete a similar follow-up survey 6-8 weeks later and to provide the quantitative iron content of IS by referring the donor to the pill bottle label. Consistency between baseline and follow-up responses was assessed overall and by pill type and demographic variables. RESULTS: Of 2444 donors answering the baseline survey, 40% (978) reported MV or IP at donation, 354 of whom completed the follow-up survey. A majority of survey respondents (56%-61%) reported taking iron across the two surveys, and 21%-24% took MV but were uncertain if their pills contained iron. Of 215 reporting IS at baseline, overall concordance at follow-up was 68% and was higher for donors who were female, ≥50-years old, and taking iron as an iron pill rather than in a multivitamin. CONCLUSION: Consistency of donor responses may be insufficient for use in guiding donor eligibility. Referring donors to their pill bottles was unsuccessful in improving the high frequency of uncertain responses. Incorporating IS into donor eligibility determinations is a complex endeavor that will benefit from careful planning and from post-implementation monitoring.

Prevalence of blood donation eligibility in Australia: A population survey.

BACKGROUND: Reliable estimates of the population proportion eligible to donate blood are needed by blood collection agencies to model the likely impact of changes in eligibility criteria and inform targeted population-level education, recruitment, and retention strategies. In Australia, the sole estimate was calculated 10+ years ago. With several subsequent changes to the eligibility criteria, an updated estimate is required. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional national population survey to estimate eligibility for blood donation. Respondents were aged 18+ and resident in Australia. Results were weighted to obtain a representative sample of the population. RESULTS: Estimated population prevalence of blood donation eligibility for those aged 18-74 was 57.3% (95% CI 55.3-59.3). The remaining 42.7% (95% CI 40.7-44.7) were either temporarily (25.3%, 95% CI 23.5-27.2) or permanently ineligible (17.4%, 95% CI 16.1-18.9). Of those eligible at the time of the survey, that is, with the UK geographic deferral for variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease included, (52.9%, 95% CI 50.8-54.9), 14.2% (95% CI 12.3-16.3) reported donating blood within the previous 2 years. Eligibility was higher among men (62.6%, 95% CI 59.6-65.6) than women (52.8%, 95% CI 50.1-55.6). The most common exclusion factor was iron deficiency/anemia within the last 6 months; 3.8% (95% CI 3.2-4.6) of the sample were ineligible due to this factor alone. DISCUSSION: We estimate that approximately 10.5 million people (57.3% of 18-74-year-olds) are eligible to donate blood in Australia. Only 14.2% of those eligible at the time of survey reported donating blood within the previous 2 years, indicating a large untapped pool of potentially eligible blood donors.

Impact of a post-donation hemoglobin testing strategy on efficiency and safety of whole blood donation in England: A modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Deferrals due to low hemoglobin are time-consuming and costly for blood donors and donation services. Furthermore, accepting donations from those with low hemoglobin could represent a significant safety issue. One approach to reduce them is to use hemoglobin concentration alongside donor characteristics to inform personalized inter-donation intervals. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We used data from 17,308 donors to inform a discrete event simulation model comparing personalized inter-donation intervals using "post-donation" testing (i.e., estimating current hemoglobin from that measured by a hematology analyzer at last donation) versus the current approach in England (i.e., pre-donation testing with fixed intervals of 12-weeks for men and 16-weeks for women). We reported the impact on total donations, low hemoglobin deferrals, inappropriate bleeds, and blood service costs. Personalized inter-donation intervals were defined using mixed-effects modeling to estimate hemoglobin trajectories and probability of crossing hemoglobin donation thresholds. RESULTS: The model had generally good internal validation, with predicted events similar to those observed. Over 1 year, a personalized strategy requiring ≥90% probability of being over the hemoglobin threshold, minimized adverse events (low hemoglobin deferrals and inappropriate bleeds) in both sexes and costs in women. Donations per adverse event improved from 3.4 (95% uncertainty interval 2.8, 3.7) under the current strategy to 14.8 (11.6, 19.2) in women, and from 7.1 (6.1, 8.5) to 26.9 (20.8, 42.6) in men. In comparison, a strategy incorporating early returns for those with high certainty of being over the threshold maximized total donations in both men and women, but was less favorable in terms of adverse events, with 8.4 donations per adverse event in women (7.0, 10,1) and 14.8 (12.1, 21.0) in men. DISCUSSION: Personalized inter-donation intervals using post-donation testing combined with modeling of hemoglobin trajectories can help reduce deferrals, inappropriate bleeds, and costs.

"Why don't you want my poop?" Willing stool donor's experiences of being ineligible to donate intestinal microbiota.

BACKGROUND: Blood collection agencies (BCAs) hosting stool (fecal or poo) donor programs report high rates of donor deferral. However, the impact of deferral on willing donors, in terms of personal well-being and future engagement with BCAs, remains unexplored. Accordingly, we surveyed those attempting to donate intestinal microbiota about their experience of being ineligible. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 196 potential stool donors from Australia's BCA (>90% blood/blood product donors) completed the first stage of eligibility screening and then an online survey once notified of their ineligibility. Respondents reported motives for donating, perceptions of screening and improvements needed, experience of being told they are ineligible, and their feelings about this. RESULTS: Over 80% of participants were ineligible to donate. Of those ineligible, 58% did not know why they were ineligible resulting in potentially future eligible donors being permanently lost. Motives (>5%) included helping others, being a human substance donor, understanding benefits, curiosity/novelty, and helping science/research. Participants identified they needed clear and timely information during screening and a specific reason for their ineligibility. Participants commonly experienced disappointment, confusion, and calm in response to being ineligible. DISCUSSION: BCAs need strategies to mitigate the disappointment of ineligible donors, maintain satisfaction with BCAs, and preserve donor identity since many ineligible donors give multiple human substances. BCAs should provide more information about eligibility criteria during early screening stages to reduce disappointment and give personalized information about ineligibility to resolve the confusion. Offering alternative opportunities to give may reduce disappointment and increase ineligible donor engagement.

Perceived risk of HIV transmission by blood transfusion among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) in Australia.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, men who have sex with men (MSM) are deferred from blood donation for 3 months from last sexual contact. Internationally, deferral policies for MSM are evolving in the direction of expanded inclusivity in response to community expectations. To inform future policy options, we assessed perceptions of the risk of HIV transmission from blood transfusion among Australian MSM. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Flux is an online prospective cohort of Australian gay and bisexual men (cis or trans, regardless of their sexual history) and other men who have had sex with men (gbMSM). We included questions on blood donation rules, window period (WP) duration, infectivity of blood from people with HIV on treatment and attitudes to more detailed questioning of sexual practices in the regular survey of Flux participants and conducted a descriptive analysis of responses. RESULTS: Of 716 Flux participants in 2019, 703 responded to the blood donation questions. The mean age was 43.7 years (SD 13.6 years). Overall, 74% were willing to confidentially respond to specific sexual behavior questions, such as the last time they had sex and the type of sex they had, in order to be considered eligible to donate blood. The majority (92%) of participants correctly assessed the duration of the WP as less than 1 month. When asked whether transfusion of blood from a donor with HIV and an undetectable viral load could transmit HIV, just under half (48%) correctly said yes. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests Australian gbMSM are generally comfortable with answering more detailed questions regarding sexual activity during the assessment to donate, indicating they would do so honestly. gbMSM are knowledgeable about the WP duration, important for their ability to correctly self-assess their HIV risk. However, half of participants incorrectly assessed the transmissibility by blood transfusion from an HIV positive person with an undetectable viral load, suggesting the need for a targeted education campaign.

The added value of ferritin levels and genetic markers for the prediction of haemoglobin deferral.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: On-site haemoglobin deferral for blood donors is sometimes necessary for donor health but demotivating for donors and inefficient for the blood bank. Deferral rates could be reduced by accurately predicting donors' haemoglobin status before they visit the blood bank. Although such predictive models have been published, there is ample room for improvement in predictive performance. We aim to assess the added value of ferritin levels or genetic markers as predictor variables in haemoglobin deferral prediction models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Support vector machines with and without this information (the full and reduced model, respectively) are compared in Finland and the Netherlands. Genetic markers are available in the Finnish data and ferritin levels in the Dutch data. RESULTS: Although there is a clear association between haemoglobin deferral and both ferritin levels and several genetic markers, predictive performance increases only marginally with their inclusion as predictors. The recall of deferrals increases from 68.6% to 69.9% with genetic markers and from 79.7% to 80.0% with ferritin levels included. Subgroup analyses show that the added value of these predictors is higher in specific subgroups, for example, for donors with minor alleles on single-nucleotide polymorphism 17:58358769, recall of deferral increases from 73.3% to 93.3%. CONCLUSION: Including ferritin levels or genetic markers in haemoglobin deferral prediction models improves predictive performance. The increase in overall performance is small but may be substantial for specific subgroups. We recommend including this information as predictor variables when available, but not to collect it for this purpose only.

Relevance of haemoglobin monitoring in apheresis plasma donors: A retrospective cohort study in Québec, Canada.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Systematically measuring pre-donation haemoglobin (Hb) levels might be overly cautious for apheresis plasma donation, since plasmapheresis entails a small loss of red blood cells. We explored the association between the frequency of apheresis plasma donation and capillary blood Hb levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included donors who gave apheresis plasma at least twice between 24 October 2020 and 23 October 2022 in Québec, Canada. Results were stratified by sex and analysed with linear repeated-measure mixed models with random intercepts. RESULTS: In total, 9535 men (mean age = 46.7 years) and 9409 women (mean age = 41.1 years) made ≥2, but no more than 16 apheresis plasma donations. Over an average of 9.2 months of observation, men maintained Hb levels well above the Hb deferral threshold, and their Hb levels decreased by only 0.17 g/dL between the 1st and 15th donation return (p < 0.0001). Over an average of 9.0 months of observation, women also maintained adequate Hb levels, and their Hb levels decreased by 0.08 g/dL between the 1st and 15th donation return. CONCLUSION: The frequency of apheresis plasma donation was not associated with clinically meaningful changes in Hb levels, neither in men nor in women. This evidence questions the relevance of systematically monitoring Hb for apheresis plasma donation, at least for donation frequencies of ≤7-8 times per year. However, an adverse impact of plasmapheresis on Hb levels cannot be ruled out for individuals donating more frequently or for longer than ~9 months.

An international comparison of haemoglobin deferral prediction models for blood banking.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Blood banks use a haemoglobin (Hb) threshold before blood donation to minimize donors' risk of anaemia. Hb prediction models may guide decisions on which donors to invite, and should ideally also be generally applicable, thus in different countries and settings. In this paper, we compare the outcome of various prediction models in different settings and highlight differences and similarities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Donation data of repeat donors from the past 5 years of Australia, Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands and South Africa were used to fit five identical prediction models: logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine, linear mixed model and dynamic linear mixed model. Only donors with five or more donation attempts were included to ensure having informative data from all donors. Analyses were performed for men and women separately and outcomes compared. RESULTS: Within countries and overall, different models perform similarly well. However, there are substantial differences in model performance between countries, and there is a positive association between the deferral rate in a country and the ability to predict donor deferral. Nonetheless, the importance of predictor variables across countries is similar and is highest for the previous Hb level. CONCLUSION: The limited impact of model architecture and country indicates that all models show similar relationships between the predictor variables and donor deferral. Donor deferral is found to be better predictable in countries with high deferral rates. Therefore, such countries may benefit more from deferral prediction models than those with low deferral rates.

Risk of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in a simulated cohort of Canadian blood donors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: No transfusion-associated cases of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) have occurred in more than 20 years. Yet, many countries have maintained blood donor deferral criteria for vCJD. We developed a risk simulation model to reassess the need for vCJD-related deferral criteria in Canada. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The model provides results separately for Héma-Québec (HQ) and Canadian Blood Services (CBS). The model used a Monte Carlo simulation approach to estimate the risk of having a vCJD-contaminated blood donation ('risk of vCJD') in a simulated cohort of 10 million donors followed for up to 85 years. The model assumed current deferral criteria for vCJD were lifted, which would allow new 'at-risk' donors to give blood. The model accounted for disease prevalence, donors' travel/immigration history, PRNP genotype at codon 129, demographics and the type of labile blood product. RESULTS: In the base case, the risk of vCJD was estimated at zero at both blood services. In the most pessimistic scenario, the risk of vCJD was 6.4 × 10-9 (i.e., 1 in 157 million donations) at HQ, or ≤1 in 77 million based on the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI). At CBS, this risk was 4.8 × 10-8 (i.e., 1 in 21 million donations), or ≤1 in 16 million based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. CONCLUSION: vCJD poses minimal risks to the Canadian blood supply. Current vCJD deferral criteria may, therefore, be lifted with virtually no impact on safety, while significantly expanding the donor base.

Men who have sex with men and risk for transfusion-transmissible infections in blood donors in Western countries: A systematic review update.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This systematic review update summarizes evidence concerning transfusion-transmissible infections (TTIs) in male blood donors reporting sex with another man (MSM) or after easing the MSM deferral period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched five databases, including studies comparing MSM versus non-MSM donors (Type I), MSM deferral periods (Type II) or infected versus non-infected donors (Type III) in Western countries, and used GRADE to determine evidence certainty. RESULTS: Twenty-five observational studies were included. Four Type I studies suggest that there may be an increased risk for overall TTIs, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and syphilis in MSM donors, but the evidence is very uncertain. There was insufficient evidence of MSM with low-risk sexual behaviour. A Type II study indicates that easing the MSM deferral period to 1 year may have little to no effect on TTI risk. TTI prevalence in blood donors under 5-year, 1-year, 3-month or risk-based deferral in eight other Type II studies was too low to provide clear conclusions on the effect of easing the deferral. Three Type III studies reported that MSM may be a risk factor for HIV. Increased risk of HBV, hepatitis C virus and HTLV-I/II could not be shown. The evidence from Type III studies is very uncertain. CONCLUSION: There may be an increased risk of HIV in MSM blood donors. Shortening the deferral from permanent to 1 year may have little to no effect on TTI risk. However, there is limited, unclear evidence from observational studies concerning the impact of introducing 3-month or risk-based deferrals.