Removing the men who have sex with men blood donation deferral: Informing risk models using Canadian public health surveillance data

Steps Forward to a Fair and Inclusive Blood Supply

Blood transfusions save lives. Scientific advancements in infectious disease testing, immunohematology, and blood processing, coupled with an altruistic blood donor model, blood transfusion has become a safe and effective therapeutic intervention. Blood establishments are an integral part of the health care continuum. However, challenges related to access to blood as well as diversity of blood donors can reflect the broader issues within our health care system. An awareness of the social injustices while using medical evidence-based data to support change will be essential for ensuring equitable access to life-saving treatments for all individuals and the communities we serve.

Implementing pathogen reduction technology while discontinuing blood donor deferral criteria for sexual risk behaviors: A simulation study

BACKGROUND

Combining pathogen reduction technology (PRT) with blood screening may alleviate concerns over the risk of transfusion-transmitted infections (TTI) and support changes in blood donor selection to potentially increase blood availability. This study aimed to estimate the residual risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) transfusion-transmission in Canada after implementing PRT, while eliminating deferrals for sexual risk behaviors.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A probabilistic approach that combined Bayesian networks with Monte Carlo simulations was used to estimate the risk of transfusing HIV-, HBV-, or HCV-contaminated blood components. Different scenarios were considered to compare the current residual risk after PRT implementation, with and without donor deferral criteria for sexual risk behaviors. Donor profiles and blood component outcomes were simulated based on a literature review including the prevalence and incidence of HIV, HBV, and HCV in the Canadian blood donor population; the use of current blood screening assays; and HIV, HBV, and HCV blood donor viral loads.

RESULTS

In the universal PRT scenario (i.e., with PRT/without deferral criteria), the estimated risks of HIV, HBV, and HCV transmission were significantly lower than those in the currently observed scenario (i.e., without PRT/with deferral criteria).

CONCLUSIONS

This risk model suggests that PRT for platelets and plasma (and eventually for RBCs when available) significantly reduces the residual risks of HIV, HBV and HCV transfusion-transmission and could enable the removal of blood donor deferral criteria for sexual risk behaviors.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Other Sexual and Gender Minority Health Disparities: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other sexual and gender minorities (LGBTQ+) populations in the United States continue to experience disparities in health and health care. Discrimination in both health care and society at large negatively affects LGBTQ+ health. Although progress has been made in addressing health disparities and reducing social inequality for these populations, new challenges have emerged. There is a pressing need for physicians and other health professionals to take a stance against discriminatory policies as renewed federal and state public policy efforts increasingly impose medically unnecessary restrictions on the provision of gender-affirming care. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) reaffirms and updates much of its long-standing policy on LGBTQ+ health to strongly support access to evidence-based, clinically indicated gender-affirming care and oppose political efforts to interfere in the patient-physician relationship. Furthermore, ACP opposes institutional and legal restrictions on undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education and training on gender-affirming care and LGBTQ+ health issues. This paper also offers policy recommendations to protect the right of all people to participate in public life free from discrimination on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation and encourages the deployment of inclusive, nondiscriminatory, and evidence-based blood donation policies for members of LGBTQ+ communities. Underlying these beliefs is a reaffirmed commitment to promoting equitable access to quality care for all people regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Implementation of sexual risk behavior donor screening in Canada

BACKGROUND

The two Canadian blood suppliers, Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec, removed the time-based deferral for men who have sex with men and adopted criteria assessing sexual risk behaviors. We report the impact of these changes on the safety and adequacy of the Canadian blood supply.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Since 2022, all donors are asked if (1) they have had a new partner and (2) more than one sexual partner in the last 3 months. Donors answering yes to either question are asked if they had anal sex in the last 3 months; if yes, they are deferred for 3 months. We followed HIV rates for the 18 months before and 14 (Héma-Québec) or 18 months (Canadian Blood Services) post-implementation and interviewed HIV-positive whole blood donors. We assessed the number and characteristics of whole blood donors answering yes to the two first questions with or without deferral.

RESULTS

There were four HIV-positive donations out of 1,492,355 donations pre-implementation and four out of 1,447,772 post-implementation (0.27/100,000 vs. 0.28/100,000, p = 1.00). Post-implementation, one HIV-positive donor was non-compliant with multiple criteria, no risk factors were identified in the others. 3.2% of donors answered yes to questions (1) and/or (2); 0.17% were deferred for a new partner and/or more than one partner and anal sex. Deferral rates were highest in first time, younger donors, and similar in males and females.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of sexual risk behavior donor screening resulted in unchanged HIV rates to date and a manageable deferral rate.

End of selection criteria based on sexual orientation: An international symposium on alternatives to donation deferral

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Until recently, gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) were deferred from donating blood for 3-12 months since the last male-to-male sexual contact. This MSM deferral has been discontinued by several high-income countries (HIC) that now perform gender-neutral donor selection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An international symposium (held on 20-04-2023) gathered experts from seven HICs to (1) discuss how this paradigm shift might affect the mitigation strategies for transfusion-transmitted infections and (2) address the challenges related to gender-neutral donor selection.

RESULTS

Most countries employed a similar approach for implementing a gender-neutral donor selection policy: key stakeholders were consulted; the transition was bridged by time-limited deferrals; donor compliance was monitored; and questions or remarks on anal sex and the number and/or type of sexual partners were often added. Many countries have now adopted a gender-neutral approach in which questions on pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have been added (or retained, when already in place). Other countries used mitigation strategies, such as plasma quarantine or pathogen reduction technologies for plasma and/or platelets.

CONCLUSION

The experience with gender-neutral donor selection has been largely positive among the countries covered herein and seems to be acceptable to stakeholders, donors and staff. The post-implementation surveillance data collected so far appear reassuring with regards to safety, although longer observation periods are necessary. The putative risks associated with HIV antiretrovirals should be further investigated.

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.

MSM and blood donation: shifting to individualized risk assessment

Deferring donors at higher risk for transfusion transmissible infections is an important part of ensuring blood safety. The deferral for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) was implemented in the 1980s in many countries, since they were identified as a high-risk group for AIDS/HIV. With the introduction of increasingly sensitive HIV antibody testing, augmented by nucleic acid testing, the window period for HIV infection-when a donor may be infectious but have negative test results-has shrunk dramatically. In Canada, this has led to progressively shorter deferral periods for gbMSM, decreasing from a permanent deferral for sex with another male since 1977 to a 5-year, 12-month, and eventually 3-month deferral period. These time-based deferrals maintained safety; however, they are seen as stigmatizing by many and still result in the deferral of sexually active gbMSM. More recently, several countries have moved to a donor screening approach based on assessing sexual risk behaviors in all donors. This article outlines research supporting changes in policy, current eligibility screening policies in several countries, and preliminary results postimplementation of new eligibility policies in Canada in September 2022.

Evolving the gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men time-based deferral to sexual risk screening for all donors: The contribution of Canadian research programmes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In Canada, the time deferral for gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) to donate blood has gradually decreased. In September 2022, this deferral was replaced with sexual behaviour-based screening for all donors. We investigate how data from targeted research programmes addressed knowledge gaps to support this change.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a scoping review describing the Canadian literature available before the research programmes relating to (1) behavioural indicators of HIV risk and (2) attitudes to blood donation among gbMSM, current donors and the general population. We summarize the targeted research programmes, their outputs and impact to date.

RESULTS

For question 1, five projects met inclusion criteria. For question 2, three articles met inclusion criteria. Knowledge gaps identified were insufficient evidence of HIV incidence in gbMSM who met other donor eligibility criteria and scant data on opinions and views of blood donation and screening criteria for sexual risk behaviours. The research programmes funded 19 projects at 11 different research sites involving over 100 individual researchers/collaborators resulting in 19 peer-reviewed publications to date. Leveraging existing gbMSM cohorts yielded relevant HIV incidence data to inform safety modelling studies. Findings indicated that sexual behaviour-based screening was acceptable to gbMSM and donors, and donor discomfort around specific questions could be mitigated with clear explanations.

CONCLUSION

Targeted research programmes filled critical knowledge gaps and informed a change to gender-neutral, sexual behaviour-based screening for all donors. Findings supported successful implementation of these changes with research-informed staff training.

How do we forecast tomorrow's transfusion: Infectious safety?

Continuous improvement has led to a very high degree of microbial safety of transfusion. Four issues are likely to impact the future of this safety. There will be further advances in the efficacy and efficiency of donation testing and pathogen reduction, increasing safety and hopefully eliminating unnecessary procedures. While system failures have been essentially eliminated, there will be ongoing, unpredictable issues that are inevitable. Emerging infections are likely the greatest concern and will continue, although advances in science and technology will permit increasingly rapid responses to outbreaks. Finally, the practice of transfusion may eventually impact safety as usage of blood is reduced and perhaps as alternatives to conventional blood components are developed.