Blood system changes since recognition of transfusion-associated AIDS

Patient-centered pharmacovigilance: priority actions from the inherited bleeding disorders community

Pharmacovigilance, the science and practice of monitoring the effects of medicinals and their safety, is the responsibility of all stakeholders involved in the development, manufacture, regulation, distribution, prescription, and use of drugs and devices. The patient is the stakeholder most impacted by and the greatest source of information on safety issues. It is rare, however, for the patient to take a central role and exert leadership in the design and execution of pharmacovigilance. Patient organizations in the inherited bleeding disorders community are among the most established and empowered, particularly in the rare disorders. In this review, two of the largest bleeding disorders patient organizations, Hemophilia Federation of America (HFA) and National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF), offer insights into the priority actions required of all stakeholders to improve pharmacovigilance. The recent and ongoing increase in incidents raising safety concerns and a therapeutic landscape on the cusp of unprecedented expansion heighten the urgency of a recommitment to the primacy of patient safety and well-being in drug development and distribution.

Plain Language Summary

Patients at the center of product safety Every medical device and therapeutic product has potential benefits and harms. The pharmaceutical and biomedical companies that develop them must demonstrate that they are effective, and the safety risks are limited or manageable, for regulators to approve them for use and sale. After the product has been approved and people are using it in their daily lives, it is important to continue to collect information about any negative side effects or adverse events; this is called pharmacovigilance. Regulators, like the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration, the companies that sell and distribute the products, and healthcare professionals who prescribe them are all required to participate in collecting, reporting, analyzing, and communicating this information. The people with the most firsthand knowledge of the benefits and harms of the drug or device are the patients who use them. They have an important responsibility to learn how to recognize adverse events, how to report them, and to stay informed of any news about the product from the other partners in the pharmacovigilance network. Those partners have a crucial responsibility to provide clear, easy-to-understand information to patients about any new safety concerns that come to light. The community of people with inherited bleeding disorders has recently encountered problems with poor communication of product safety issues, prompting two large US patient organizations, National Hemophilia Foundation and Hemophilia Federation of America, to hold a Safety Summit with all the pharmacovigilance network partners. Together they developed recommendations to improve the collection and communication of information about product safety so that patients can make well-informed, timely decisions about their use of drugs and devices. This article presents these recommendations in the context of how pharmacovigilance is supposed to work and some of the challenges encountered by the community.

Blood Donation, Sexual Practices, and Self-Perceived Risk for HIV in the United States Among Young Adult Men Who Have Sex With Men

OBJECTIVES

In the United States, all men who have sex with men (MSM) were banned from donating blood from 1985 through 2015. In 2016, the guideline was amended such that men who had sexual contact with other men within the previous 12 months could not donate blood. We aimed to identify blood donation practices and their relationship with HIV risk and testing among young adult MSM (YMSM) at risk for having HIV.

METHODS

In 2014, we recruited HIV-negative non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white YMSM aged 18-24 from across the United States through social media platforms to complete an online survey. Among these YMSM who previously donated blood, we conducted a secondary analysis examining the relationship between having donated blood within the past 12 months and sexual risk behavior from recent condomless anal intercourse (CAI), HIV testing, and self-perceived risk of having an undiagnosed HIV infection.

RESULTS

Of the 2261 YMSM surveyed, 1104 (48.8%) had ever previously donated blood and 305 (13.5%) had donated blood within the past 12 months. Of the 305 blood donors, 50 (16.4%) had ever had CAI before their most recent blood donation. Among YMSM who donated blood, past-12-month blood donation was more likely among YMSM who never had CAI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-2.73) than among YMSM who had CAI and more likely among YMSM who believed it was not possible at all that they had an undiagnosed HIV infection (aOR = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.14-2.16) than among YMSM who believed there was any possibility of having an undiagnosed HIV infection; it was not related to past-12-month HIV testing.

CONCLUSIONS

YMSM donated blood frequently, suggesting that the deferral process in place did not prevent YMSM from donating blood. The current donor screening process should be reconsidered if it is to prevent YMSM from donating blood. Future research could identify screening questions that permit YMSM with a low risk of HIV infection to donate blood while maintaining the safety of the blood supply.

The Precautionary Principle and the Tolerability of Blood Transfusion Risks

Tolerance for blood transfusion risks is very low, as evidenced by the implementation of expensive blood tests and the rejection of gay men as blood donors. Is this low risk tolerance supported by the precautionary principle, as defenders of such policies claim? We discuss three constraints on applying (any version of) the precautionary principle and show that respecting these implies tolerating certain risks. Consistency means that the precautionary principle cannot prescribe precautions that it must simultaneously forbid taking, considering the harms they might cause. Avoiding counterproductivity requires rejecting precautions that cause more harm than they prevent. Proportionality forbids taking precautions that are more harmful than adequate alternatives. When applying these constraints, we argue, attention should not be restricted to harms that are human caused or that affect human health or the environment. Tolerating transfusion risks can be justified if available precautions have serious side effects, such as high social or economic costs.

Hemoglobin-Based Oxygen Carrier (HBOC) Development in Trauma: Previous Regulatory Challenges, Lessons Learned, and a Path Forward

Historically, hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers (HBOCs) were being developed as "blood substitutes," despite their transient circulatory half-life (~ 24 h) vs. transfused red blood cells (RBCs). More recently, HBOC commercial development focused on "oxygen therapeutic" indications to provide a temporary oxygenation bridge until medical or surgical interventions (including RBC transfusion, if required) can be initiated. This included the early trauma trials with HemAssist ^® (BAXTER), Hemopure ^® (BIOPURE) and PolyHeme ^® (NORTHFIELD) for resuscitating hypotensive shock. These trials all failed due to safety concerns (e.g., cardiac events, mortality) and certain protocol design limitations. In 2008 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put all HBOC trials in the US on clinical hold due to the unfavorable benefit:risk profile demonstrated by various HBOCs in different clinical studies in a meta-analysis published by Natanson et al. (2008). During standard resuscitation in trauma, organ dysfunction and failure can occur due to ischemia in critical tissues, which can be detected by the degree of lactic acidosis. SANGART'S Phase 2 trauma program with MP4OX therefore added lactate >5 mmol/L as an inclusion criterion to enroll patients who had lost sufficient blood to cause a tissue oxygen debt. This was key to the successful conduct of their Phase 2 program (ex-US, from 2009 to 2012) to evaluate MP4OX as an adjunct to standard fluid resuscitation and transfusion of RBCs. In 2013, SANGART shared their Phase 2b results with the FDA, and succeeded in getting the FDA to agree that a planned Phase 2c higher dose comparison study of MP4OX in trauma could include clinical sites in the US. Unfortunately, SANGART failed to secure new funding and was forced to terminate development and operations in Dec 2013, even though a regulatory path forward with FDA approval to proceed in trauma had been achieved.