Donor vigilance: What are we doing about it?

Blood Donation-Related Adverse Reactions: Results of an Online Survey among Donors in Germany (2018)

Introduction

According to German legislation, reports of suspected serious adverse reactions (AR) associated with the donation of blood and its components are continuously being evaluated by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. This survey aimed at providing a more complete picture of the AR associated with the donation of blood and blood components.

Materials and Methods

Eligible donors had the opportunity to anonymously report all AR occurring during or after their last donation by completing an online questionnaire. Reported AR were classified according to the Standard for Surveillance of Complications Related to Blood Donation. Donors' self-assessment of AR seriousness was compared with the official severity classification as laid down by German legislation. Besides a descriptive statistical analysis, a multiple logistic analysis was performed to identify risk factors for AR.

Results

A total of 8,138 data records were evaluated. Slightly more males (57.9%) participated in the survey and, except for donors aged ≥60 years, all age groups were equally represented. The majority of participants were whole blood donors (85.4%), repeat donors (97.2%), and stayed under observation in the blood establishment (BE) for more than 5 min (63.1%) after donation. Most participants did not report any reaction (72.5%), whereas 2,237 reported at least one AR (27.5%), 475 of whom underwent apheresis and 1,762 donated whole blood. Most AR occurred after leaving the BE (64.4%). Only a minority of participants required medical treatment (5.1%) or assessed the experienced AR as serious (3.9%). The most frequently reported donor AR were haematoma and other local reactions (57.6%). Vasovagal reactions without and with loss of consciousness were developed in 17 and 2% of the participants, respectively, whilst 7.6% experienced citrate reactions. New AR (i.e., allergic reactions and symptoms associated with iron deficiency) were reported as well. The occurrence of AR was linked to risk factors (i.e., female gender, young age, first-time donation, and thrombocytapheresis).

Discussion

This survey yielded a more comprehensive AR spectrum, revealed a prolonged time to symptom onset, and identified risk factors for AR. This novel information could be implemented in an amended informed consent addressing common and rare AR.

The new donor vigilance system in Denmark reveals regional differences in adverse reactions supposedly caused by variation in the registration

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In recent years, there has been an increased focus among blood bank professionals on the health and safety of blood donors. In 2019, the Danish Haemovigilance Committee designed a national donor vigilance system to improve the registration of adverse reactions (AR) in blood donors. The new donor vigilance system was implemented on 1 January 2020 and we here present the results from the first year of registration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

AR categories, severity level and imputability score were defined based on the definitions from the International Society of Blood Transfusion, AABB and the European Commission directive 2005/61/EC, respectively.

RESULTS

Across all severity levels, AR in Danish blood donors were found to be rare (1498 per 100,000 donations). Only 0.2% of the registered reactions were classified as serious (2.7 per 100,000 donations). Large regional differences were seen in the registration of citrate reactions and haematomas.

CONCLUSION

Significant differences across regions in what to categorize as an AR were persistent even when including a severity score in the reporting. The Danish Haemovigilance Committee will commence a national work to align the definitions but suggests that this matter is raised to an international level as part of the current work to agree upon definitions for assessment of donor AR.

Putting the spotlight on donation-related risks and donor safety - are we succeeding in protecting donors?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The European consortium project TRANSPOSE (TRANSfusion and transplantation: PrOtection and SElection of donors) aimed to assess and evaluate the risks to donors of Substances of Human Origin (SoHO), and to identify gaps between current donor vigilance systems and perceived risks.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

National and local data from participating organizations on serious and non-serious adverse reactions in donors were collected from 2014 to 2017. Following this, a survey was performed among participants to identify risks not included in the data sets. Finally, participants rated the risks according to severity, level of evidence and prevalence.

RESULTS

Significant discrepancies between anticipated donor risks and the collected data were found. Furthermore, many participants reported that national data on adverse reactions in donors of stem cells, gametes, embryos and tissues were not routinely collected and/or available.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that there is a need to further develop and standardize donor vigilance in Europe and to include long-term risks to donors, which are currently underreported, ensuring donor health and securing the future supply of SoHO.