How donor selection criteria can be evaluated with limited scientific evidence: lessons learned from the TRANSPOSE project.
blood safety
donor health
donor safety
donor selection
donor vigilance
donors
haemovigilance
Journal
Vox sanguinis
ISSN: 1423-0410
Titre abrégé: Vox Sang
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0413606
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Mar 2021
Historique:
revised:
21
10
2020
received:
29
05
2020
accepted:
21
10
2020
pubmed:
17
11
2020
medline:
21
5
2021
entrez:
16
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Donor selection criteria (DSC) are a vital link in the chain of supply of Substances of Human Origin (SoHO) but are also subject to controversy and differences of opinion. Traditionally, DSC have been based on application of the precautionary principle. From 2017 to 2020, TRANSPOSE (TRANSfusion and transplantation PrOtection and SElection of donors), a European research project, aimed to identify discrepancies between current DSC by proposing a standardized risk assessment method for all SoHO (solid organs excluded) and all levels of evidence. The current DSC were assessed using a modified risk assessment method based on the Alliance of Blood Operators' Risk-based decision-making framework for blood safety. It was found that with limited or diverging scientific evidence, it was difficult to reach consensus and an international standardized method for decision-making was lacking. Furthermore, participants found it hard to disregard their local guidelines when providing expert opinion, which resulted in substantial influence on the consensus-based decision-making process. While the field of donation-safety research is expanding rapidly, there is an urgent need to formalize the decision-making process regarding DSC. This includes the need for standardized methods to increase transparency in the international decision-making process and to ensure that this is performed consistently. Our framework provides an easy-to-implement approach for standardizing risk assessments, especially in the context of limited scientific evidence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
Donor selection criteria (DSC) are a vital link in the chain of supply of Substances of Human Origin (SoHO) but are also subject to controversy and differences of opinion. Traditionally, DSC have been based on application of the precautionary principle.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
From 2017 to 2020, TRANSPOSE (TRANSfusion and transplantation PrOtection and SElection of donors), a European research project, aimed to identify discrepancies between current DSC by proposing a standardized risk assessment method for all SoHO (solid organs excluded) and all levels of evidence.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The current DSC were assessed using a modified risk assessment method based on the Alliance of Blood Operators' Risk-based decision-making framework for blood safety. It was found that with limited or diverging scientific evidence, it was difficult to reach consensus and an international standardized method for decision-making was lacking. Furthermore, participants found it hard to disregard their local guidelines when providing expert opinion, which resulted in substantial influence on the consensus-based decision-making process.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
While the field of donation-safety research is expanding rapidly, there is an urgent need to formalize the decision-making process regarding DSC. This includes the need for standardized methods to increase transparency in the international decision-making process and to ensure that this is performed consistently. Our framework provides an easy-to-implement approach for standardizing risk assessments, especially in the context of limited scientific evidence.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
342-350Subventions
Organisme : European Union's Health Programme (2014-2020).
ID : '738145 / TRANSPOSE'
Informations de copyright
© 2020 International Society of Blood Transfusion.
Références
De Kort W, Mayr W, Jungbauer C, et al.: Blood donor selection in European Union directives: Room for improvement. Blood Transfus 2016; 14(2):101-8
Kramer K, Zaaijer HL, Verweij MF: The precautionary principle and the tolerability of blood transfusion risks. Am J Bioeth 2017; 17(3):32-43
Busch MP, Bloch EM, Kleinman SH: Prevention of transfusion transmitted infections. Blood 2019; 133(17):1854-64
Wibowo S, Deng H: Consensus-based decision support for multicriteria group decision making. Comput Ind Eng [Internet] 2013; 66(4):625-33. Available from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360835213003082
Mueller MM, Van Remoortel H, Meybohm P, et al.: Patient blood management: recommendations from the 2018 frankfurt consensus conference. JAMA 2019; 321(10):983-97
Goodnough LT, Hollenhorst MA: Clinical decision support and improved blood use in patient blood management. Hematol Am Soc Hematol Educ Progr 2019; 2019(1):577-82
Busch MP, Sabino EC, Brambilla D, et al.: Duration of dengue viremia in blood donors and relationships between donor viremia, infection incidence and clinical case reports during a large epidemic. J Infect Dis 2016; 214(1):49-54
Velati C, Angelini P, Pupella S: State of the art: Vest Nile Virus circulation surveillance in Italy and transfusion risk early prevention methods. Transfus Clin Biol 2017; 24(3):172-175
Pisani G, Cristiano K, Pupella S, et al.: West Nile Virus in Europe and Safety of Blood Transfusion. Transfus Med Hemother 2016; 43:158-167
Juhl D, Mosel C, Nawroth F, et al.: Detection of herpes simplex virus DNA in plasma of patients with primary but not with recurrent infection: Implications for transfusion medicine? Transfus Med 2010; 20(1):38-47
Alfieri C, Tanner J, Carpentier L, et al.: Epstein-Barr virus transmission from a blood donor to an organ transplant recipient with recovery of the same virus strain from the recipient’s blood and oropharynx. Blood 1996; 87(2):812-817
Hudnall SD, Chen T, Allison P, et al.: Herpesvirus prevalence and viral load in healthy blood donors by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Transfusion 2008; 48(6):1180-1187
Forner L, Larsen T, Kilian M, et al.: Incidence of bacteremia after chewing, tooth brushing and scaling in individuals with periodontal inflammation. J Clin Periodontol 2006; 33(6):401-407
Sodoyez JC, Sodoyez-Goffaux F, Koch M, et al.: Clonally restricted insulin autoantibodies in a cohort of 2200 healthy blood donors. Diabetologia 1990; 33(12):719-725
Bjøro T, Gaarder PI, Smeland EB, et al.: Thyroid antibodies in blood donors: prevalence and clinical significance. Acta Endocrinol (Copenh). 1984; 105(3):324-9
Van Beek N, Dohse A, Riechert F, et al.: Serum autoantibodies against the dermal-epidermal junction in patients with chronic pruritic disorders, elderly individuals and blood donors prospectively recruited. Br J Dermatol 2014; 170(4):943-947
Prüßmann J, Prüßmann W, Recke A, et al.: Co-occurrence of autoantibodies in healthy blood donors. Exp Dermatol 2014; 23(7):519-521
Cerhan JR, Wallace RB, Dick F, et al.: Blood transfusions and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma subtypes and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001; 10(4):361-8
Hjalgrim H, Rostgaard K, Vasan SK, et al.: No evidence of transmission of chronic lymphocytic leukemia through blood transfusion. Blood 2015; 126(17):2059-2061
Edgren G, Hjalgrim H, Reilly M, et al.: Risk of cancer after blood transfusion from donors with subclinical cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2007; 369(9574):1724-30
Yang H, Lee J, Seed CR, et al.: Can blood transfusion transmit cancer? a literature review. Transfus Med Rev 2010; 24(3):235-43
Prinsze FJ, van de Laar T, Slot E, et al.: No increased risk of transfusion-transmissible infections after tattooing, body piercing, or acupuncture among blood donors in the Netherlands. Transfusion 2019; 59(8):2575-83
Hoad VC, Guy RJ, Seed CR, et al.: Tattoos, blood-borne viruses and blood donors: a blood donor cohort and risk assessment. Vox Sang 2019; 114(7):687-93
Katz LM: A test that won’t die: The serologic test for syphilis. Transfusion 2009; 49(4):617-9
Seo DH, Whang DH, Song EY, et al.: Occult hepatitis B virus infection and blood transfusion. World J Hepatol 2015; 7(3):600-6
Dwyre DM, Fernando LP, Holland PV: Hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV transfusion-transmitted infections in the 21st century. Vox Sang 2011; 100(1):92-98
Davison K, Reynolds C, Flannagan J, et al.: Abstract of 29th Regional Congress of the ISBT: Monitoring the impact of three-month deferral of sexual behaviours and scoping evidence for the assessment of an individualised risk (FAIR). Vox Sang 2019; 114:155.
Stern A, van Hage-Hamsten M, Sondell K, et al.: Is allergy screening of blood donors necessary?: A comparison between questionnaire answers and the presence of circulating IgE antibodies. Vox Sang 1995; 69(2):114-9
Johansson SGO, Nopp A, Van Hage M, et al.: Passive IgE-sensitization by blood transfusion. Allergy Eur J Allergy Clin Immunol 2005; 60(9):1192-9
Ching JCY, Lau W, Hannach B, et al.: Peanut and fish allergy due to platelet transfusion in a child. CMAJ 2015; 187(12):905-7
Tran-Mi B, Storch H, Seidel K, et al.: The impact of different intensities of regular donor plasmapheresis on humoral and cellular immunity, red cell and iron metabolism, and cardiovascular risk markers. Vox Sang 2004; 86(3):189-97
Schulzki T, Seidel K, Storch H, et al.: A prospective multicentre study on the safety of long-term intensive plasmapheresis in donors (SIPLA). Vox Sang 2006; 91(2):162-73
Burkhardt T, Rothe R, Moog R: Immunoglobulin G levels during collection of large volume plasma for fractionation. Transfus Apher Sci 2017; 56(3):417-20
Burgin M, Hopkins G, Moore B, et al.: Serum IgG and IgM levels in new and regular long-term plasmapheresis donors. Med Lab Sci 1992; 49(4):265-70
Rigas AS, Pedersen OB, Magnussen K, et al.: Iron deficiency among blood donors: experience from the Danish Blood Donor Study and from the Copenhagen ferritin monitoring scheme. Transfus Med 2019; 29:23-7
Di Angelantonio E, Thompson SG, Kaptoge S, et al.: Efficiency and safety of varying the frequency of whole blood donation (INTERVAL): a randomised trial of 45 000 donors. Lancet 2017; 390(10110):2360-71
Sweegers MG, Kraaij MGJ, Hurk K: First do no harm: iron loss in whole blood donors. ISBT Sci Ser 2020; 15(1):110-7
Cable RG, Glynn SA, Kiss JE, et al.: Iron deficiency in blood donors: the REDS-II Donor Iron Status Evaluation (RISE) study. Transfusion 2012; 52(4):702-11
King SM, AuBuchon J, Barrowman N, et al.: Consensus statement from the consensus conference on blood-borne human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis: Optimizing the donor-selection process. Vox Sang 2002; 83(2):188-93
Halter JP, van Walraven SM, Worel N, et al.: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell donation-standardized assessment of donor outcome data: a consensus statement from the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (WBMT). Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013; 48(2):220-5
Staples S, Salisbury RA, King AJ, et al.: How do we use electronic clinical decision support and feedback to promote good transfusion practice. Transfusion 2020; 60(8):1658-1665
Knight SR, Cao KN, South M, et al.: Development of a clinical decision support system for living kidney donor assessment based on national guidelines. Transplantation 2018; 102(10):e447-53