Prevalence of selected viral infections among temporarily deferred donors who returned to donate blood: American Red Cross blood donor study

Efficacy of Blood Donor Selection: Comparing Sero-Prevalence of Transfusion-Transmissible Infections Among Eligible and High-Risk Behavior Deferred Donors in Iran

Background: Eliminating high-risk individuals has a special role in ensuring blood safety. Due to epidemiological, demographic, and even cultural changes in each country, this process should be continuously evaluated and reviewed, if necessary. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the current donor selection procedure on blood safety in Iran. Methods: A total of 2,525 high-risk deferred donors who were referred between 2018 and 2019 were evaluated regarding hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis C virus antibody, and human immunodeficiency virus antigen and antibody. All repeatedly reactive samples were evaluated by confirmatory tests. Characteristics' parameters, donor status, and TTI marker rates of the participants and 1,315,871 eligible donors in the indicated period obtained from the national database on blood donors, were compared. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 24.0. Results: The prevalence of HBV, HCV, and HIV in 100,000 deferred donors was 1148, 515, and 119, respectively. This prevalence was 26, 28, and 33-times higher than the eligible donors, respectively. Unlike HBV, its prevalence among males was almost twice that of females among the deferred group. In the eligible group, females had a higher prevalence for HBV and HCV as compared to males. The HCV and HBV (6.7 and 4.3-fold) among deferred first-time donors had a significantly higher prevalence compared with the eligible first-time donors (P‐value < 001). Notably, the higher was the education degree, the lower was the prevalence of infection in both groups. Conclusions: Current deferral criteria and donor selection procedure in Iran are an opportunity to eliminate high-risk individuals from the blood donation.

Anti-HBc screening - is it worth the effort? Results of a 10-year surveillance programme covering more than 30 million donations in Germany

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Antibodies to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc) testing were added to hepatitis surface antigen (HBsAg) screening in Germany in 2006 to prevent hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmissions by chronically infected donors. We report the results of a national surveillance of anti-HBc-reactive and HBsAg-negative donations and assess the resulting gain in blood safety and the donor loss.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Donations were tested for anti-HBc, and if reactive, by sensitive individual donation nucleic acid testing (ID-NAT) and for antibodies to HBsAg (anti-HBs). Data from the national anti-HBc surveillance from 2006 to 2015 determined the proportion of anti-HBc-reactive donations stratified for donor type, sex, anti-HBs concentration and NAT-positivity. Donor loss due to anti-HBc-reactive results was quantified.

RESULTS

Of 31 562 556 donations screened, 70 671 were anti-HBc reactive but HBsAg negative (0.22%). The proportion of repeat donors with these test results decreased significantly from 0.25% in 2007 to 0.08% in 2015. In the entire study period, 82 HBV-NAT-positive donations were identified. Of these, 47 donations were only identified by ID-NAT. A total of 54 203 anti-HBc-reactive units were discarded either due to possible infectiousness (NAT positive or anti-HBs concentration <100 IU/l) or because no further testing was performed.

CONCLUSION

Anti-HBc screening has improved blood safety in Germany. HBV-NAT-positive donations were identified after ID-NAT was triggered by the initial reactive anti-HBc result. The observed loss of donations was sustainable for maintaining an adequate blood supply in Germany.

Good Feasibility of the New German Blood Donor Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

We assessed the effect of the uniform donor questionnaire (UDQ) on deferral rates in first-time and repeat donors. We focused on the introduced question about unprotected sexual contact with a new partner. Another goal was a stratified comparison of the deferral rates of the donor questionnaire (DQ) and UDQ.

METHODS

Data on donors and deferrals using the DQ and UDQ were collected at four blood establishments. The comparison included a 2-year period by questionnaire version. For the comparison of the questionnaires, an adjusted multinomial logistic regression was performed.

RESULTS

The analysis included 260,848 donations. First-time (FTD) and repeat donations (RD) showed higher deferral rates with the UDQ (FTD +5.4%, RD +1.4%). Deferral due to a new partner was 3.0% in first-time and 0.4% in repeat donors. The majority of these occurred in the youngest age groups. The most frequent deferral criterion was 'disease' (5.1%).

CONCLUSION

The regression revealed stronger predictors for deferral than the questionnaire version. Especially younger age carried a higher and independent risk for deferral. The additional deferrals of mainly young first-time donors due to a new sexual partner may identify those donors with potential heterosexual risk behavior who would otherwise not be identified.

Analysis of blood donor pre-donation deferral in Dubai: characteristics and reasons

Background

To ensure an adequate and safe blood supply, it is crucial to select suitable donors according to stringent eligibility criteria. Understanding the reasons for donor deferral can help in planning more efficient recruitment strategies and evaluating donor selection criteria. This study aims to define donor pre-donation deferral rates, causes of deferral, and characteristics of deferred donors in Dubai.

Materials and methods

This retrospective study was conducted on all donors who presented for allogeneic blood donation between January 1, 2010, until June 30, 2013, in Dubai Blood Donation Centre, accredited by the American Association of Blood Banks. The donation and deferral data were analyzed to determine the demographic characteristics of accepted and deferred donors, and frequency analyses were also conducted.

Results

Among 142,431 individuals presenting during the study period, 114,827 (80.6%) were accepted for donation, and 27,604 (19.4%) were deferred. The overall proportion of deferrals was higher among individuals less than 21 years old (35%, P<0.000), females (44% were deferred compared to 15% of males, P<0.0001), and first-time donors (22% were deferred vs 14% of repeat donors, P<0.0001). The main causes for a temporary deferral were low hemoglobin and high blood pressure.

Discussion

The deferral rate among blood donors in Dubai is relatively high compared to the internationally reported rates. This rate was higher among first-time donors and females, with low hemoglobin as the major factor leading to a temporary deferral of donors. Strategies to mitigate deferral and improve blood donor retention are urged in Dubai to avoid additional stress on the blood supply.

A study on confidential unit exclusion at Shiraz Blood Transfusion Center, Iran

Background:

Confidential unit exclusion (CUE) system has been designed to enhance transfusion safety as an extra additive approach.

Aims:

This study was designed to survey demographic characteristics, prevalence of serologic markers, and reasons of opting CUE.

Materials and Methods:

The cross-sectional study was performed at Shiraz Blood Transfusion Center (Southern Iran). CUE is used for all individuals who refer for blood donation, and donors can choose their blood not to be used if they have any doubt about their blood suitability for transfusion. The prevalence rate of HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) was compared between the blood donors who opted into and out of CUE. Then, the donors were contacted to give another blood sample and the reasons of deferral. Researchers also determined whether their reasons were logical or not. Data were analyzed using comparison of proportions in MedCalc software 7.

Results:

Out of all the donors, 2365 ones (2.3%) opted for CUE. CUE was more frequent among men, singles, donors with low education levels, between 18 and 25 years old, and with history of previous donation (P < 0.05). The prevalence rate of HCV was higher among the donors who opted for CUE (P < 0.05), but it was not the case regarding HBV and HIV (P>0.05). Furthermore, 91.5% of the donors had opted for CUE by mistake and only 8% had chosen CUE logically.

Conclusion:

It is necessary to review the process of CUE, make some changes both in procedure and design, and then survey its effectiveness in blood safety.

[Evaluation of the efficacy of medical screening of blood donors on preventing blood transfusion-transmitted infectious agents]

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of medical screening to retain blood donors in window period by comparing the seroprevalence of infectious agents (HIV, hepatitis B and C, syphilis) in deferred versus accepted blood donors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective and transversal study was performed during 4 months in the National Blood Transfusion Center in Dakar (Senegal). We conducted a convenience sampling comparing the seroprevalence of infectious agents (HIV, HBsAg, HCV and syphilis) in deferred versus accepted blood donors after medical selection.

RESULTS

In total, 8219 blood donors were included. Medical selection had authorized 8048 donors (97.92%) and deferred donors were 171 (2.08%). The prevalence of HIV was higher in the deferred than in accepted blood donors (1.75% vs. 0.05%) (P=0.0003; OR=35.91), as well as for HBsAg (12.87% vs. 7.35%) (P=0.006; OR=1.86). HCV antibodies were present in 0.71% of accepted blood donors and 0.58% in deferred blood donors (P=0.65; OR=0.82). Only accepted donors had brought the infection of syphilis (0.34%) (P=0.56; OR=0).

CONCLUSION

Medical selection is efficient to exclude blood donors at high risk of HIV transmission and to a lesser extent of HBV. However, current medical screening procedures do not allow us to exclude donors asymptomatic carriers of HCV and syphilis.

Rates and reasons for blood donor deferral, Shiraz, Iran. A retrospective study

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Knowledge of the reasons for donor deferral can help in planning more efficient recruitment strategies and evaluating donor selection criteria. This study aimed to investigate the rates and reasons for donor deferral.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective study at Shiraz Blood Transfusion Center, Shiraz, Iran.

METHODS

141,820 volunteers were interviewed confidentially by physicians before blood donation. The rate of and reasons for donor deferral were investigated according to demographic characteristics. The data were analyzed using the comparison-of-proportions test of the MedCalc statistical software.

RESULTS

43,839 people (30.9%) who had come for blood donation were deferred, 1,973 (4.5%) of them permanently. The deferral rate was significantly higher among women, single individuals and first-time donors, compared with men, married individuals and those with a history of previous donation (P < 0.0001). The deferral rate was significantly higher in the 17 to 30-year-old group (P < 0.05). The reasons for deferral were divided into five categories: risk factors possibly related to HIV or hepatitis (43.6%), underlying diseases (31.9%), non-eligible conditions (13.5%), medications that interfere with blood donation (7.8%) and risk factors that may relate to bacterial or viral infections except HIV and hepatitis infections (3.2%).

CONCLUSION

Effective measures are required for documenting the impact of deferral on blood availability, monitoring the effectiveness of and need for deferral, and determining the reasons and rates of deferral.

Successful exclusion of blood-borne viral disease in blood donors

BACKGROUND

All blood transfusion services have various rules to insure that blood products are kept safe for transfusion. Donor selection is crucial in providing safe blood. We propose in our study to determine the influence of donor selection on blood safety.

METHODS

In this case-control study, donors who were referred to the Qazvin Blood Transfusion Organization during 2007-2009 were selected. Based on a special questionnaire, all blood donors were examined by physicians and every donor was categorized as one of two types of rejected donors (high risk and low risk) or as accepted donors. Data were analyzed by SPSS version 13.0, using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests, where P<0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Single donors, the self-employed, the unemployed and students were banned from donation due to high-risk criteria (P<0.0001, 0.003). Female donors were banned from donation due to low-risk criteria. Hepatitis B was more prevalent among cases rejected for donation due to high-risk criteria than among healthy controls (P=0.014); but not so for hepatitis C (P=0.058). Hepatitis B was not significantly more prevalent among those cases rejected for donation due to low-risk criteria, than among healthy cases.

CONCLUSION

Those having a history of unsafe sexual conduct and intravenous drug abusers and their spouses are at risk for hepatitis C. Cases rejected for donation due to low-risk criteria were banned from donation to maintain the donors' health, while other cases with low-risk criteria were banned to guarantee the blood recipients' health.

Blood donation screening for hepatitis B virus markers in the era of nucleic acid testing: are all tests of value?

BACKGROUND

The American Red Cross implemented hepatitis B virus (HBV) minipool (MP)-nucleic acid testing (NAT) in June 2009, in addition to existing tests for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and antibodies to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc). The value of all three tests was evaluated.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

HBsAg, anti-HBc, and HBV DNA (Ultrio MP-NAT, Gen-Probe/Novartis) donation results were analyzed during a 12-month period (July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010). Additional testing by individual-donation (ID) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to confirm donor infection was performed when any HBV screening test was reactive or positive, except in the case of HBsAg neutralization-positive, anti-HBc-reactive samples. Numbers of blood donations identified as reactive or positive versus nonreactive or negative were compared.

RESULTS

Of about 6.5 million donations, 699 were defined as from HBV-infected donors, of which 64% (444) were reactive for all three markers. More than 99% (697) had reactivity to one or both serologic tests with 68% (477) showing reactivity by MP-NAT. Only two donations were DNA-positive, seronegative NAT-yield donations (1 per 3.23 million), fewer than expected (p = 0.0075). Among MP-NAT-reactive donors, only small numbers represented early infection (2 or 0.4% with negative serology and 10 or 2.1% who were HBsAg confirmed positive, anti-HBc nonreactive). Of the 142 occult HBV-infected donors, 85% were MP-NAT nonreactive requiring ID-PCR for detection (121 or 54.5% of all MP-NAT nonreactives vs. 21 or 4.4% of all MP-NAT reactives).

CONCLUSIONS

The HBV DNA-positive yield rate from MP-NAT was lower than expected, likely representing the rarity of such findings even in very large studies. With the implementation of HBV MP-NAT, the value of maintaining anti-HBc for the detection of low-level HBV DNA-positive donors was confirmed; however, HBsAg screening showed no blood safety value.

Donor return after temporary deferral

BACKGROUND

The consequences of temporary predonation deferral are unsatisfactorily understood. Studies have found that deferral negatively impacts future donor return. However, the applicability of these findings across centers has not been established.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Using a cohort design, presenting donors with a temporary deferral in 2006 to 2008 in one of six categories (low hematocrit [Hct], blood pressure or pulse, feeling unwell, malaria travel, tattoos or piercing and related exposures, or could not wait or second thoughts) were passively followed for up to a 3-year period for the time to first return after deferral expiration at six US blood centers. Time-to-event methods were used to assess return. We also analyzed which donor characteristics were associated with return using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 3.9 million donor presentations, 505,623 resulted in deferral in the six categories. Low Hct was the most common deferral, had the shortest median time to return (time in days when 50% of deferred donors had returned), and had the largest cumulative proportion of donors returning. Deferrals of shorter duration had better return. Longer-term deferrals (up to 1 year in length) had the lowest cumulative return proportion, which did not exceed 50%. Return was associated with previously identified factors such as repeat donor status, older age, and higher educational attainment regardless of the type of deferral. In addition, return was associated with having been born in the United States and donation at fixed sites.

CONCLUSION

The category of temporary deferral influences the likelihood of future return, but the demographic and donation factors associated with return are largely consistent regardless of the deferral.

Current incidence and residual risk of hepatitis B infection among blood donors in the United States

BACKGROUND

This study used two approaches to estimate the current incidence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in a US donor population.

METHODS

HBV incidence was estimated through the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) yield approach and the seroconversion method. Residual risk was estimated by the incidence–window period model. HBsAg yield refers to an HBsAg confirmed-positive, antibody against hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc)–nonreactive donation, adjusted for false-positive neutralization results. The number of HBsAg-seroconverting repeat donors divided by total number of person-years of evaluation or the HBsAg yield rate divided by HBsAg yield window gave rise to incidence estimates.

RESULTS

The seroconversion and the yield approach, respectively, gave an incidence estimate of 3.41 or 3.43 per 105 person-years. Using a revised infectious window period of 38 or 30 days for current HBsAg assays, the current residual risk for HBV was respectively estimated for 2006 to 2008 at 1 in 282,000 or 1 in 357,000 donations from the seroconversion approach and 1 in 280,000 or 1 in 355,000 donations from the yield approach. With the same database and methods, this is a decrease from 1 in 86,000 to 1 in 110,000 observed in 1997 to 1999.

CONCLUSIONS

Current HBV incidence and residual risk are lower than earlier estimates, especially in the youngest donors, but remain higher in the absence of HBV nucleic acid test than those for human immunodeficiency virus or hepatitis C virus (HCV). In addition to the exclusion of HBsAg false-positive donors, the reduction could reflect shortened window periods and decreased incidence rates due to vaccination or other reasons.

Alternative strategies in assuring blood safety: An overview

Assuring transfusion safety is an essential element of health care in all countries, requiring government commitment, national policy and a legal framework. Fundamental safety strategies include selection of low risk donors, Good Manufacturing Practices in preparation of blood components, and appropriate clinical use including avoidance of unnecessary transfusions. Hemovigilance, including surveillance for known adverse events and sentinel reporting of unexpected adverse events, enhances safety through benchmarking to promote best practices and by enabling rapid responses to new threats. Preventing transmission of infectious diseases is a principal safety concern. Selection of low risk donors includes use of screening questions to elicit risk factors known to be associated with transmissible infections. Laboratory testing for specific infectious disease markers is an established strategy for interdicting contaminated donations. The sensitivity, specificity, and operational convenience of laboratory testing have improved over time and newer technologies are imminent. Donor screening and laboratory testing, while highly effective in reducing risk, cannot eliminate all risk from known agents and must be developed de novo to address emerging infections. In contrast, pathogen reduction technologies offer the possibility for robust inactivation of a broad spectrum of blood transmissible agents and provide an added safeguard against newly emerging infectious threats of most types. Current pathogen reduction methods also inactivate leukocytes, adding safety benefits similar to leukocyte removal and product irradiation. However, to date, concerns about the safety and efficacy of cellular blood components treated by pathogen reduction have prevented approval of these technologies in the U.S. and Canada. FDA is promoting clinical and basic scientific studies to clarify these issues and would consider alternative approaches to assuring blood safety if pathogen reduction technologies are proven to be safe and effective.

Preventing transfusion-transmitted HIV infection in Latin America and the Caribbean: issues associated with blood donor interviews and sex between men

BACKGROUND

Blood-borne transmission is the most efficient route for acquiring HIV infection, particularly through transfusion. Availability of noninfectious blood units for hemotherapy is a necessary condition for efficient functioning of health services. They have the obligation to ensure that the blood supply is safe, which includes interviewing potential donors to ascertain whether they might be at risk of being HIV infected. The interview procedures demand that blood services staff inquire potential blood donors about sexual practices associated to HIV transmission. Assumptions and misconceptions may unnecessary exclude adequate donors.

METHODS

Review of published and unpublished country reports in Latin America regarding blood safety and deferral criteria related to same sexual behavior among males.

RESULTS

An analysis of criteria for deferral of potential blood donors shows inconsistencies that may impact the necessary safe blood supply.

CONCLUSIONS

The blood donor deferral criteria should be revised according to relevant epidemiological evidence and social legitimacy. Personnel in blood banks and hemotherapy services should be educated to conduct appropriate interviews for accepting or deferring potential donors. Potential donors and the public should be knowledgeable for them to understand the reasons why some individuals may be deferred. Health authorities should work to reduce the stigma associated with HIV, prioritize building strong and meaningful partnerships with civil society, and engage diverse sectors in the national AIDS response.

Reassessment of deferrals for tattooing and piercing

BACKGROUND

In August 2005, the Canadian Blood Services decreased the deferral period for tattooing and ear or body piercing from 12 to 6 months. This study assessed the impact of this change on blood safety and availability.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The prevalence of these activities was assessed on an anonymous mail-out survey of 40,000 recent donors. Transmissible disease (TD) marker rates were calculated using the National Epidemiology Donor Database. A case-control study was performed comparing risk factors in TD-positive donors with matched controls. Donor deferral rates were assessed before and after the change in deferral period.

RESULTS

The prevalence rates of tattoo, ear piercing, and body piercing were 13.7, 53.6, and 10.4 percent in survey respondents, respectively, with up to 0.7 percent of activity likely to represent deferrable risk. TD marker rate was low and stable at 21.6 per 100,000 donations before and 19.2 per 100,000 donations after the change in deferral length. Remote tattoo was associated with hepatitis C virus (HCV) risk (odds ratio, 5.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.82-16.2), but neither recent tattoo nor piercing was a risk factor for HCV or hepatitis B virus. Shortening of the deferral period reduced deferrals by 20 percent for tattoo and 32 percent for piercing.

CONCLUSION

There was no measurable adverse effect on safety and a positive but less than expected effect on blood availability after shortening the deferral period for tattoo and piercing. The length of other temporary deferrals should be reassessed, since their current contribution to blood safety may be negligible.

Reducing the risk of transfusion-transmissible viral infection through blood donor selection: the Australian experience 2000 through 2006

BACKGROUND

Selection of voluntary donors who are at low risk of transfusion-transmissible viral infection (TTVI) is central in maintaining the safety of the blood supply. Evaluation of its effectiveness and the dynamics of the process may offer opportunities to further improve transfusion safety.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The impact of donor selection on prevalence of TTVI was analyzed in all allogeneic donations in Australia between July 2000 and June 2006 by interviewing donors found to have a TTVI. The presence and disclosure of infective risks was reassessed.

RESULTS

A total of 6.3 million donations were tested; of these, 1,449 (0.02%) were repeat-reactive for a TTVI and were discarded. This comprised 605 (42%) positive for the presence of hepatitis B, 818 (56%) positive for the presence of hepatitis C, 18 (1%) positive for the presence of human immunodeficiency virus, and 20 (1%) positive for the presence of human T-cell lymphotropic virus-I and/or -II (HTLV-I/II). This prevalence was 50 to 350 times lower than in the Australian population. In 1,158 cases (80%), an infective risk was identified; 509 donors (44%) had more than one. The most common identified were country of birth and parental ethnicity (n = 682, 26% of risks), tattoos and/or piercings (n = 448, 18%), and intravenous drug use (n = 302, 12%). In 302 cases (21%) disclosure at predonation screening would have resulted in deferral. Factors influencing nondisclosure included temporal remoteness and perceptions that laboratory testing rendered disclosure unnecessary.

CONCLUSION

These findings affirm the effectiveness of current stringent donor selection criteria in reducing the residual risk of TTVI. Ongoing donor education regarding the importance of risk disclosure is required.

The consequences of temporary deferral on future whole blood donation

BACKGROUND

The consequences of temporary deferral are not well understood. This study sought to investigate blood donor return after deferral expiration.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis of allogeneic whole-blood donation was conducted. All deferred donors and a random sample of eligible donors were identified from the year 2000, with subsequent blood center visits through December 2005 captured. Stratified results are reported as the percentage returning, rates of return, and time to return. Measures of statistical association and Cox regression modeling are reported.

RESULTS

For first-time (FT) donors, 25 percent of temporarily deferred donors returned during the 5-year follow-up period compared to 47 percent of eligible donors (p < 0.0001); for repeat donors, 81 and 86 percent of deferred and eligible donors returned, respectively (p < 0.0001). Depending on the deferral category, 14 to 31 percent of FT and 58 to 90 percent of repeat donors returned. Rates (per year) of successful donation during the follow-up period were 0.09 for index-deferred FT donors, 0.28 for eligible FT donors, 1.0 for deferred repeat donors, and 1.45 for eligible repeat donors. Multivariate modeling indicated that in addition to deferral, age, sex, race, and education were associated with return in both FT and repeat donors.

CONCLUSION

The effects of deferral were more pronounced than expected, affecting both FT and repeat donors. For FT donors, the type and duration of deferral, while important, were not as relevant as hypothesized because so few returned, suggesting the need to develop appropriate interventions to recapture those donors likely to be eligible.

Prevalence of selected viral infections among blood donors deferred for potential risk to blood safety

BACKGROUND

Health history questions identify blood donors believed to pose a higher risk of transmission of infectious diseases. This study assesses the current impact of some of these questions on blood safety as reflected by infectious disease markers.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Donors who were deferred from donating blood due to health history question(s) were recruited at four different regions of the American Red Cross Blood Services. A blood sample was tested for serologic markers of blood-borne infections as performed for accepted blood donors.

RESULTS

Of 497 deferred donors enrolled, 29 donors were deferred for having had "yellow jaundice, liver disease, or hepatitis since the age of 11" (Question 3), 1 of whom had hepatitis C virus antibodies (anti-HCV) and hepatitis B core antigen antibodies (anti-HBc), 2 had anti-HBc, and 1 had anti-HCV (p < 0.05 for both markers). Among 37 donors deferred for having "ever tested positive for hepatitis" (Question 4), 1 had hepatitis B surface antigen and anti-HBc and 3 had anti-HBc (p < 0.05 for both markers). Of 14 donors deferred for "having ever used a needle, even once, to take any illegal or nonprescription drug" (Question 12), 1 had anti-HCV, human T-lymphotropic virus-I antibodies and anti-HBc, 1 had anti-HCV and anti-HBc, and 2 had anti-HCV (p < 0.05 for all three markers).

CONCLUSIONS

Blood donors deferred for standard blood donor questions regarding risk of viral hepatitis as well as those with a history of intravenous drug use were more likely to have higher hepatitis marker rates than those who were not deferred. No significant findings were identified for other markers or questions.

Does blood donor history accurately reflect the use of prescription medications? A comparison of donor history and serum toxicologic analysis

BACKGROUND

Blood donor screening is performed to accomplish several goals, including donor safety during collection and recipient safety during transfusion. Donors taking certain medications such as teratogens or platelet-inhibiting drugs are deferred from donation. Studies investigating the accuracy of the donor history are limited and only provide data on select groups of drugs. This study compares the results of an extended serum toxicology analysis to the medication use reported on the donor questionnaire.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Whole-blood samples were collected from 108 volunteer blood donors. A serum toxicology analysis was performed with high-performance liquid chromatography with photodiode array detection. The results were compared to those reported on the donor history questionnaire.

RESULTS

The medication history was consistent with the reported medications in 96 (89%) donors. Serum toxicology testing detected medications that were not reported on the donor history form in 12 (11%) donors. Most of the donors who did not accurately report their medication use (8 or 67%) were taking psychotropic medications.

CONCLUSION

Eleven percent of the donors did not fully disclose their recent medication history. Although none of the omitted medications would have been grounds for deferral, the finding of underreporting questions the reliability of donor screening. Despite a negative medication history, blood donor centers cannot assume that donors are medication-free. This study reveals a bias to omit psychotropic medications such as antidepressants and anxiolytics.