The Precautionary Principle and the Tolerability of Blood Transfusion Risks

Safety profile of plasma for fractionation donated in the United Kingdom, with respect to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease

Plasma-derived medicinal products (PDMPs) are life-saving and life-improving therapies, but the raw material is in short supply: Europe depends on importation from countries including the United States. Plasma from donors resident in the United Kingdom has not been fractionated since 1999 when a precautionary measure was introduced in response to the outbreak of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD). Cases of vCJD have been far fewer than originally predicted in the 1990s. Since the introduction of leucodepletion in 1999, and accounting for the incubation period, more than 40 million UK-derived blood components have been issued with no reports of TT vCJD. In February 2021, the UK Government authorized manufacture of immunoglobulin from UK plasma. Following separate reviews concluding no significant difference in the risk posed, the United States, Australia, Ireland and Hong Kong also lifted their deferrals of blood donors with a history of living in the United Kingdom. Other countries are actively reviewing their position. Demand is rising for PDMPs, and Europe faces a threat of supply shortages. Industry and patient groups are clear that using UK plasma would bring significant immediate benefits to patients and to the resilience of the European supply chain. From this scientific review, we conclude that UK plasma is safe for fractionation and urge blood regulators and operators to take account of this safety profile when considering fractionation of UK plasma, and to revise their guidelines on the deferral of donors who have lived in, or received a transfusion in, the United Kingdom.

Communicating the move to individualized donor selection policy: Framing messages focused on recipients and safety

BACKGROUND

Men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) have been deferred from donating blood. However, recent evidence supports the adoption of donor screening based on individuals' sexual behavior over population-based criteria. We explore how best to frame communications about adopting this change to minimize any potential negative consequences (e.g., reduced donor numbers). We examine the effectiveness of risk (emphasizing safety vs. emphasizing low risk), and focus (donor vs. recipient) frames on intentions to donate blood (approach) or feeling deterred from donating (avoid), and mechanisms linked to under-reporting sexual behavior.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a 2 (risk frame: risk vs. safety) by 3 (focus: donor vs. recipient vs. both) between-subjects online experiment (n = 2677). The main outcomes were intentions to donate and feelings of being put-off/deterred from donating (both for self and others). We also assessed the extent that forgetting, embarrassment/shame, and question irrelevance were perceived to be associated with under-reporting sexual behavior.

RESULTS

Frames that focused on safety or a recipient resulted in people reporting being less deterred from donating. Regardless of frame, people from ethnic minorities were more likely to feel deterred. Embarrassment/shame followed by forgetting and perceived irrelevance were the main reasons for under-reporting sexual behaviors, especially in ethnic minorities, and smartphones were perceived as an acceptable memory aid for sexual behavior.

DISCUSSION

Blood services moving to an individualized policy should frame donor selection in terms of safety and/or a recipient focus, explore sensitivities in ethnic minority communities, consider ways to normalize reporting sexual behavior, and use smartphones as a memory aid.

Uncovering Historical Legacies to Contextualize Health Inequities in Puerto Rican Men: An Expansion of the Minority Stress Model

BACKGROUND

Low/no-income Latino men are disproportionately burdened by chronic disease morbidity and mortality, which is often compounded by persistent exposure to stress. Chronic stress is a key mediating factor in pathways linking macro-level socio-structural forces to micro-level behavioral factors with negative health outcomes. Being that Latinxs continue to be one of the fastest growing populations in the U.S., it is imperative to better understand the roots of stress pathways and explore multi-level interventions.

METHODS

This study presents qualitative findings from in-depth interviews with Puerto Rican men (95%) living in Springfield, Massachusetts. We utilized the Minority Stress Model (MSM) first posited by Ilan Meyers, as a framework to understand stress and stress processes amongst Puerto Rican men. We mapped our data onto Meyers' MSM, which allowed us to find diverging themes and identify areas for expansion.

RESULTS

As expected, participants reported stress rooted in experiences of racism and prejudice, expectations of rejection, English-language acquisition, family relationships, insecure housing, precarious employment, and lack of resources. Nevertheless, the MSM did not account for the historical contexts that, as our findings indicate, are used to filter and understand their experiences with everyday stressors. Participants described and linked histories of colonial violence and movement and migration to their stress and community wellbeing.

DISCUSSION

Findings suggest the need to expand the current MSM and our conceptualization of the stress process to include historical understandings when contextualizing present-day stress and future interventions. We propose an expanded heuristic model that delineates the impact of distinctive historical trajectories that aid in interpreting racial health disparities amongst minoritized populations. Future multi-level interventions should give weight to highlighting history and how this impacts the present, in this case including the culpability of U.S. policy regarding Puerto Rico and the adverse health effects for Puerto Rican men on the mainland.

The Precautionary Principle in Zoonotic Disease Control

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that zoonotic diseases are a great threat for humanity. During the course of such a pandemic, public health authorities often apply the precautionary principle to justify disease control measures. However, evoking this principle is not without ethical implications. Especially within a One Health strategy, that requires us to balance public health benefits against the health interests of animals and the environment, unrestricted use of the precautionary principle can lead to moral dilemmas. In this article, we analyze the ethical dimensions of the use of the precautionary principle in zoonotic disease control and formulate criteria to protect animals and the environment against one-sided interpretations. Furthermore, we distinguish two possible conceptions of the precautionary principle. First, we notice that because of the unpredictable nature of zoonotic diseases, public health authorities in general focus on the idea of precaution as preparedness. This reactive response often leads to difficult trade-offs between human and animal health. We therefore argue that this policy should always be accompanied by a second policy, that we refer to as precaution as prevention. Although zoonotic diseases are part of our natural world, we have to acknowledge that their origin and global impact are often a consequence of our disturbed relation with animals and the environment.

Science in action? A critical view of UK blood donation deferral policy and men who have sex with men

The rules that govern blood donation vary globally. Some potential blood donors are ineligible for immediate blood donation, and as such are deferred until such time that they become eligible. This practice, the blood donation deferral period, is intended to reduce the risk of blood-borne infections being transfused into a blood product-recipient. As blood screening technologies improve, the risk of an infected blood product remaining undetected decreases-and so too have the deferral periods for certain donors. Much has been made of the importance of an evidence-based, scientific approach to protecting blood product-recipients. However, these deferrals are controversial. What exactly determines the blood donation deferral period? This article argues that blood donation deferral periods are not merely the result of enacting empirical data. Instead, the deferral periods represent a negotiation between scientific evidence, experts, politically expedient narratives, institutionalised risk aversion, as well as more mundane concerns such as operational feasibility. As a case study, I examine how the UK Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs changed the 12-month deferral period for blood donation from men who have sex with men to a 3-month deferral period.

How donor selection criteria can be evaluated with limited scientific evidence: lessons learned from the TRANSPOSE project

BACKGROUND AND 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

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

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

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.

Review of current transfusion therapy and blood banking practices

Transfusion Medicine is a dynamically evolving field. Recent high-quality research has reshaped the paradigms guiding blood transfusion. As increasing evidence supports the benefit of limiting transfusion, guidelines have been developed and disseminated into clinical practice governing optimal transfusion of red cells, platelets, plasma and cryoprecipitate. Concepts ranging from transfusion thresholds to prophylactic use to maximal storage time are addressed in guidelines. Patient blood management programs have developed to implement principles of patient safety through limiting transfusion in clinical practice. Data from National Hemovigilance Surveys showing dramatic declines in blood utilization over the past decade demonstrate the practical uptake of current principles guiding patient safety. In parallel with decreasing use of traditional blood products, the development of new technologies for blood transfusion such as freeze drying and cold storage has accelerated. Approaches to policy decision making to augment blood safety have also changed. Drivers of these changes include a deeper understanding of emerging threats and adverse events based on hemovigilance, and an increasing healthcare system expectation to align blood safety decision making with approaches used in other healthcare disciplines.

When are infection risks of blood transfusion tolerable? Towards understanding the ethical views of stakeholders in the blood supply

Background and objectives

The perception of transfusion‐transmitted infections (TTIs) is sensitive to various concerns besides the probability and impact of infection, and some of these concerns may be ethically relevant. This paper aims to advance thinking about blood safety policies by exploring and explaining stakeholders’ reasons to consider TTI risks tolerable or intolerable.

Materials and methods

Inspired by critical empirical ethics and phenomenological hermeneutics, we held interviews and focus group discussions to explore the moral experience of policymakers, hematologists, blood donors and recipients. Respondents were invited to discuss general concerns about the blood supply, to address the tolerability of TTI risks compared with other hazards and to comment on the costs of blood safety. Arguments for tolerance or intolerance towards TTI risks were analysed qualitatively.

Results

Stakeholders’ views could be clustered into seven categories: (1) clinical impact; (2) probability of infection; (3) avoidability of infection; (4) cost and health benefits; (5) other consequences of safety measures; (6) non‐consequentialist ethical arguments; and (7) stakeholders’ interests. Various arguments were offered that resonate with current ethical thinking about blood safety. Assuming that resources spent on inefficient blood safety measures could be applied more beneficially elsewhere, for example, responders typically expressed tolerance towards TTI risks. Some other arguments seem novel, for instance arguments for risk intolerance based on the low probability of infection and arguments for risk tolerance if patients have a poor prognosis.

Conclusion

Understanding the moral experience of stakeholders enriches ethical debate about blood safety and prepares developing more widely acceptable policies.

Prevention of Transfusion-Transmitted Infections: Dilemmas

To make blood components and blood products safe, many safety measures are applied to avoid transfusion-transmitted infections. Defining a balanced safety policy is not easy, we face several dilemmas: How safe should blood be? Should we opt for maximal or optimal safety? Are perceived threats real and relevant? Should blood be clean while food, air, or mosquitoes are not? Is vCJD still a threat? It seems wise to discuss these issues more in the open.