Which Infectious Blood Donors Could Be Identified by the Donor History Questionnaire? - Comparison of Blood Donors Infected with HIV or HCV with Notified Cases from General Population in Germany

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.

Motivations for blood donation by HIV-positive individuals on antiretrovirals in South Africa: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

We performed a mixed-methods study to explore the motivations associated with blood donation by donors with known, but undisclosed HIV-positive status and ARV use (HIV+/ARV+), seeking potential strategies to reduce such donations and mitigate risk for blood recipients. Here, we report predominantly the qualitative component.

BACKGROUND

A safe and sustainable blood supply is dependent in part, on effective pre-donation donor assessment. We previously described failure by HIV+/ARV+ blood donors to disclose their status. Such donations may lead to transfusion-transmitted HIV.

METHODS

The social ecological model provided the conceptual framework for this study. Previously identified HIV+/ARV+ donors were invited to complete a survey (including a validated stigma scale) and qualitative interview, which underwent inductive and deductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We uncovered two primary motivational paths to HIV+/ARV+ blood donations: privacy and altruism. The latter included a motivation not previously reported in the literature: donating specifically for other people living with HIV (PLWH). The other primary factor was a lack of privacy. These accounts often included donors encountering donation opportunities when accompanied by people to whom they had not and did not plan to disclose their HIV status. Most were highly confident their donations would be identified as HIV-positive and discarded.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated a complex interaction between individual, social, cultural, and structural/policy factors in blood donations by PLWH who take ARV. Recommendations to limit HIV + ARV+ donations include: (1) Targeted communication strategies to increase knowledge among PLWH of their deferral from blood donation-without increasing stigma, and (2) development of procedures to assist those who feel unable to opt-out of donation due to privacy concerns.

Completing the Donor History Questionnaire before the Donation Visit Can Improve Blood Safety

Background and Objectives

In Germany, the donor history questionnaire (DHQ) is traditionally filled in at the donation center to avoid any influence of others. Since March 2020, it has been suggested to donors to answer the DHQ already at home and to call if they have any concerns to reduce the number of ineligible donors on-site during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and Methods

We evaluated the rate of ineligible donors before and after March 2020. Additionally, an anonymous online survey asking for the donors' attitude towards the DHQ was performed. It included questions on whether and for what reason the DHQ had been answered incorrectly in the past.

Results

The rate of ineligible donors decreased by 27% (from 7.1% to 5.2%). In total, 5,556 of 10,252 invited donors completed the survey (54.2%). 88.6% reported either going through the DHQ at home or knowing all questions from their previous donations. 444 donors (8.0%) had at least once postponed a donation after reading the DHQ at home. 68 donors (1.2%) admitted having intentionally provided false answers in the past (9 at home, 43 on-site, 14 both, 2 unknown). Not wanting to be rejected once arriving at the donation center was an important motivation for 42% of donors answering incorrectly on-site. Details on 46 incorrect answers were provided: only 17 had no influence on donor eligibility or product quality. In 5 cases, some blood products might have had impaired quality. Truthful answers to 17 questions would have led to deferral, mostly due to increased risk for unrecognized viral infections transmitted by sexual contacts. For a further 7 questions, there was insufficient information available to determine possible consequences. Asked about their general opinion, 753 (13.6%) of all donors estimated the risk of incorrect answers being greater on-site, while 239 (4.3%) presumed an increased risk at home.

Conclusion

Answering the DHQ prior to a donation visit prevented ineligible donors from visiting the donation center. Furthermore, it might improve honesty, as the discomfort of being deferred after arriving at the donation center was an important reason to answer incorrectly. Overall, there was no increased risk of donor or product safety, and potentially even a benefit.

Undisclosed Sexual Risk Exposures: Results of a Nationwide Compliance Study among Whole Blood Donors in Germany

Background

Undisclosed sexual infection risks are the main reasons for transfusion transmissible infections in German blood donors that have qualified for donation by donor health interviews and questionnaires. Until now, data about compliance with deferral criteria were only available from post-donation interviews with infected donors, and information about the proportion of donors which did not disclose (sexual) risks at the donor health questionnaire was not available.

Methods

A prospective nationwide anonymous online survey was conducted to investigate compliance of whole blood donors with deferral criteria for sexual infection risks. Twenty-one blood establishments which represent 80% of the regular whole blood-donor population invited all donors which donated blood during an 8-week period between January and March 2020.

Results

14,882 participants completed the questionnaire. A relevant proportion of non-compliance was shown (3.0%, 95% CI: 2.7-3.3%) - with male donors being non-compliant significantly more frequently than females (3.5% vs. 2.2%, p < 0.001). A quarter of the non-compliant men were MSM (0.9%, 95% CI: 0.7-1.1%). Non-compliance was strongly associated with the perception that questions about sexual risk exposures are too private. This is in line with the finding that a large proportion of donors (21%) refused to answer at least one question about sexual infection risks.

Conclusion

The presented data, collected for the first time, is suitable for assessing the impact of changes in the donor selection process. Donor's limited willingness to provide detailed information about sexual risk behaviour has to be kept in mind when further strategies for fair appraisal of individual sexual infection risks will be discussed.

Fecal Microbiota Transfer

BACKGROUND

Fecal microbiota transfer (FMT) is increasingly being used in Ger- many, as in other countries, for the treatment of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI). FMT is now being performed both for research and in individual patients outside of clinical trials. No compulsory standards have been established to date for donor screening or for the method of fecal transfer. Given the potential dangers of FMT, this would seem to be urgently necessary.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent literature retrieved by a selective search, including the reports of consensus conferences from Germany and abroad.

RESULTS

Because of its high efficacy, FMT is the treatment of choice for rCDI. It is largely free of adverse side effects, even in immune-deficient patients, as long as comprehensive and repeated donor screening has been carried out, with extensive clinical and microbiological testing and with the use of structured questionnaires. The ingestion of frozen, encapsulated microbiota is just as effective as other modes of delivery for the treatment of rCDI.

CONCLUSION

Encapsulation of the fecal microbiome (FM) and storage at -20°C is the method of choice, because it can be standardized with the necessary quality controls and it is readily available. Patients with rCDI should undergo FMT by orally ingesting the capsules. There are ongoing research efforts to identify the active e FM. It is not yet clear when the ultimate goal of recombinant production can be achieved.

Tattoos, blood-borne viruses and blood donors: a blood donor cohort and risk assessment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is conflicting evidence in the literature as to whether there is a blood-borne virus (BBV) risk associated with tattoos in licensed premises. However, blood donors are currently deferred from blood donation in Australia for 4 months after any tattoo. We aimed to assess the incidence of BBVs in blood donors who declared tattoos and evaluate the risk to blood safety through risk modelling.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Donors from 2013 to 2016 with a tattoo deferral on their blood donor file with pre- and post-BBV testing were analysed to determine an incidence of BBVs using standard methods. This was compared to a 2014 cohort of whole blood donors with a deferral of 4 months due to travel to a malaria-endemic area. Using the incidence of tattoos and BBV risk, the total residual risk estimate of allowing tattooed donors to return without restriction was calculated.

RESULTS

The incidence rate of BBVs in blood donors following tattoo deferral was 13·26 (95% CI 2·67-38·75) per 100 000 person-years (all were hepatitis C infections in males compared to 9·26 (95% CI 2·49-23·71) per 100 000 in blood donors following malaria deferral. If other risk factors were accounted for the risk in tattoo donors decreased to 4·4 per 100 000 person-years. The total residual risk calculation if donors with a tattoo were allowed to donate without restriction was estimated at 1 in 34 million.

CONCLUSIONS

This residual risk indicates BBV deferral for donors post-tattoo in Australia is not required for blood safety.