Evaluation of a pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)/post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) deferral policy among blood donors

End of selection criteria based on sexual orientation: An international symposium on alternatives to donation deferral

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Until recently, gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) were deferred from donating blood for 3-12 months since the last male-to-male sexual contact. This MSM deferral has been discontinued by several high-income countries (HIC) that now perform gender-neutral donor selection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An international symposium (held on 20-04-2023) gathered experts from seven HICs to (1) discuss how this paradigm shift might affect the mitigation strategies for transfusion-transmitted infections and (2) address the challenges related to gender-neutral donor selection.

RESULTS

Most countries employed a similar approach for implementing a gender-neutral donor selection policy: key stakeholders were consulted; the transition was bridged by time-limited deferrals; donor compliance was monitored; and questions or remarks on anal sex and the number and/or type of sexual partners were often added. Many countries have now adopted a gender-neutral approach in which questions on pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have been added (or retained, when already in place). Other countries used mitigation strategies, such as plasma quarantine or pathogen reduction technologies for plasma and/or platelets.

CONCLUSION

The experience with gender-neutral donor selection has been largely positive among the countries covered herein and seems to be acceptable to stakeholders, donors and staff. The post-implementation surveillance data collected so far appear reassuring with regards to safety, although longer observation periods are necessary. The putative risks associated with HIV antiretrovirals should be further investigated.

Medication Deferrals in Blood Donors

Medication use is extremely common in blood donors. Blood centers use various methods to obtain a history of medication use, all of which have strengths and weaknesses. Some data are available to develop policies for medications that impact product quality, transmissible disease testing, and infectious risks. Many blood centers defer donors for use of a small number of highly teratogenic medications, as a precautionary measure. Others also defer for possible harms related to the pharmacologic effects of medications. However, a single exposure to a blood component containing medication, with immediate dilution in the recipient's blood stream, is a very different situation from ongoing use of medication in a patient, with steady state concentrations achieved over time. It is therefore highly unlikely that these effects are relevant for recipient safety.

Virological safety of the UK blood supply in the era of individual risk assessments and HIV PrEP

A more individualised donor selection policy was implemented in the UK in 2021, which replaced the previous 3-month deferral for men who have sex with men (MSM). Other blood services have a variety of policies in place to ensure the virological safety of blood components, ranging from an indefinite ban on MSM, to a defined period of exclusion, or to an individualised risk assessment that is not based on gender or sexual orientation. Justification of these policies should be based on scientific evidence including assessment of lengths of virological window periods, infectious disease epidemiology within donor populations and donation screening assay sensitivities. Developments in molecular technology and assays which can detect both antibodies and antigens in the very early stages of infection have significantly reduced the risk in most developed countries. However, the increasing usage of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent acquisition of HIV infection after possible high-risk sexual contact within the UK blood donor population has been recently noted. It has brought with it new diagnostic challenges within blood screening, notably possible non-detection of HIV RNA and serological markers following PrEP use despite potential infectivity. The use of other testing strategies such as detection of HIV DNA and screening for non-declared PrEP usage should be investigated further.

Perceived risk of HIV transmission by blood transfusion among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) in Australia

BACKGROUND

In Australia, men who have sex with men (MSM) are deferred from blood donation for 3 months from last sexual contact. Internationally, deferral policies for MSM are evolving in the direction of expanded inclusivity in response to community expectations. To inform future policy options, we assessed perceptions of the risk of HIV transmission from blood transfusion among Australian MSM.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Flux is an online prospective cohort of Australian gay and bisexual men (cis or trans, regardless of their sexual history) and other men who have had sex with men (gbMSM). We included questions on blood donation rules, window period (WP) duration, infectivity of blood from people with HIV on treatment and attitudes to more detailed questioning of sexual practices in the regular survey of Flux participants and conducted a descriptive analysis of responses.

RESULTS

Of 716 Flux participants in 2019, 703 responded to the blood donation questions. The mean age was 43.7 years (SD 13.6 years). Overall, 74% were willing to confidentially respond to specific sexual behavior questions, such as the last time they had sex and the type of sex they had, in order to be considered eligible to donate blood. The majority (92%) of participants correctly assessed the duration of the WP as less than 1 month. When asked whether transfusion of blood from a donor with HIV and an undetectable viral load could transmit HIV, just under half (48%) correctly said yes.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests Australian gbMSM are generally comfortable with answering more detailed questions regarding sexual activity during the assessment to donate, indicating they would do so honestly. gbMSM are knowledgeable about the WP duration, important for their ability to correctly self-assess their HIV risk. However, half of participants incorrectly assessed the transmissibility by blood transfusion from an HIV positive person with an undetectable viral load, suggesting the need for a targeted education campaign.

HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis, Blood Donor Deferral, Occult Infection, and Risk of HIV Transmission by Transfusion: A Fine Balance Between Evidence-Based Donor Selection Criteria and Transfusion Safety

Pre- and postexposure prophylaxis for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are key to reducing the transmission of this virus. Furthermore, low-toxicity, long-acting formulations provide additional clinical benefits, in particular easier adherence to treatment and prevention. However, breakthrough HIV infections can occur despite the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), mainly due to suboptimal adherence or multi-drug resistant HIV strains. Albeit rare, PrEP breakthrough infections have also been reported in fully adherent patients. Should such breakthrough infection occur in an eligible blood donor, PrEP might suppress viremia and delay antibody seroconversion, thereby masking the infection and increasing the risk of transfusion transmission. This possibility has raised concerns in the blood transfusion community but remains little documented. Therefore, a literature search was performed to assess the state of knowledge on the risk of PrEP breakthrough infection, with a particular focus on the risk of HIV entering the blood supply. Evidently, PrEP breakthrough infections are rare, although the risk is not zero. Moreover, a fraction of individuals - including blood donors - do not disclose PrEP use according to various surveys and measurements of HIV PrEP analytes. Additionally, viremia and seroconversion may remain undetectable or close to the limit of detection for a long time after cessation of PrEP, particularly with long-acting antiretrovirals. Therefore, current recommendations to defer donors for at least 3 months after the last dose of oral PrEP or 2 years for long-acting PrEP appear justified, as they safeguard the blood supply and public trust toward the system. These recommendations help to safeguard blood safety and public trust in the blood supply.

HIV incidence and related risks among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver: Informing blood donor selection criteria in Canada

BACKGROUND

An individualized behavior-based selection approach has potential to allow for a more equitable blood donor eligibility process. We collected biological and behavioral data from urban gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) to inform the use of this approach in Canada.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Engage is a closed prospective cohort of sexually active GBM, aged 16+ years, recruited via respondent-driven-sampling (RDS) in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, Canada. Participants completed a questionnaire on behaviors (past 6 months) and tested for HIV and sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections at each visit. Rate ratios for HIV infection and predictive values for blood donation eligibility criteria were estimated by RDS-adjusted Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Data on 2008 (study visits 2017-02 to 2021-08) HIV-negative participants were used. The HIV incidence rate for the three cities was 0.4|100 person-years [95%CI:0.3, 0.6]. HIV seroconversion was associated with age <30 years: adjusted rate ratio (aRR) 9.1 [95%CI:3.2, 26.2], 6-10 and >10 anal sex partners versus 1-6 aRR: 5.3 [2.1,13.5] and 8.4 [3.4, 20.9], and use of crystal methamphetamine during sex: 4.2 [1.5, 11.6]. Applying the combined selection criteria: drug injection, ≥2 anal sex partners, and a new anal sex partner, detected all participants who seroconverted (100% sensitivity, 100% negative predictive value), and would defer 63% of study participants from donating.

CONCLUSION

Using three screening questions regarding drug injection and sexual behaviors in the past 6 months would correctly identify potential GBM donors at high risk of having recently contracted HIV. Doing so would reduce the proportion of deferred sexually active GBM by one-third.

Removing the men who have sex with men blood donation deferral: Informing risk models using Canadian public health surveillance data

OBJECTIVE

Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) were ineligible to donate blood in most countries since the 1980's. In Canada the deferral period has been incrementally decreased from lifetime to male-to-male sex in the last 3 months. Now a few countries have removed the deferral altogether. Risk models have been utilised to estimate the probability of an HIV positive donation being released into the blood supply and to inform incremental changes to the length of the deferral period. Here we use public health data to estimate the risk of HIV if the gbMSM deferral criteria were removed in Canada.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We calculate the risk reduction among heterosexuals based on responses to standard risk questions routinely asked of donors. We assume gbMSM will donate at the same rate as heterosexual males. We apply the same risk reduction principle to HIV incidence and prevalence among gbMSM in the general population to evaluate the HIV risk without gbMSM time deferral. We model three scenarios where risk reduction is varied by assumptions about incidence and compliance with deferral criteria.

RESULTS

The estimates for all scenarios were not significantly different to the currently observed scenario which predicts a residual risk of 0.02 HIV positive per million donations (95% CI: 0.000006-0.09).

CONCLUSION

The models predict that removing the gbMSM deferral criteria would result in HIV residual risk similar to currently observed.

HIV incidence and compliance with deferral criteria over three progressively shorter time deferrals for men who have sex with men in Canada

BACKGROUND

In Canada, the deferral for men who have sex with men (MSM) has been progressively reduced from a permanent deferral for MSM since 1977, to 5 years, 1 year, and, most recently, 3 months. We estimated human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) residual risk and compliance with the MSM time deferral after each change.

METHODS

Four anonymous online compliance surveys were carried out before and after each change. HIV incidence and prevalence were monitored from 2010 to 2021. Residual risk was estimated using the incidence-window period model.

RESULTS

Human immunodeficiency virus prevalence, incidence, and residual risk did not change with incrementally shorter MSM deferrals. The residual risk per million donations post 3-month deferral was 0.05 (0.001-0.371). Men with temporally remote MSM history became eligible and, therefore, compliant as the deferral periods decreased (Cochran-Armitage p value = <.0001). However, the percentage of men with MSM history in the last 3 months with the indefinite deferral in place was similar to the percentage noncompliant, while the 3-month deferral was in place. MSM donors did not report high-risk behaviors for which they would otherwise be deferred in any survey. Following the change, an estimated 4467 MSM per year were eligible to donate, an increase from 2501 estimated eligible MSM donors following the change to the 1-year deferral.

CONCLUSION

With progressively shorter MSM deferral periods, HIV residual risk was unchanged. The proportion of male donors with deferrable MSM history remained low, while those with temporally remote MSM history became eligible, increasing the number of eligible MSM donors.

Influence of unreported HIV prophylaxis on the kinetics of post-blood donation HIV seroconversion

BACKGROUND

In 2020, of 110,000 blood donors screened for HIV exposure two individuals were identified who were viral RNA-positive but seronegative. One of the donors, borderline negative in a pooled screening test for HIV RNA, utilized antiretroviral drugs as post-exposure, pre-donation prophylaxis. The kinetics of subsequent HIV seropositivity in both donors are described.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Both donors were recalled and interviewed, and blood was obtained at intervals for HIV antibodies and RNA testing.

RESULTS

One donor used antiretroviral prophylaxis for 30 days due to a relationship with an HIV-positive partner. In follow-up samples, seroconversion was noted at 70 days, and viral RNA was detected at 105 days, after blood donation. In contrast, the other donor seroconverted in <25 days and the appearance and titer of HIV RNA was in accordance with the typical pre-seroconversion window.

CONCLUSION

The use of anti-viral prophylaxis by blood donors in the acute phase of HIV infection delays seroconversion. A 6-month deferral in blood donation after HIV prophylaxis, as currently recommended in Brazil, would have been sufficient in this case to mitigate the risk of transfusion-transmitted HIV. Ultimately, improvement in donor compliance with selection procedures for blood donation is needed to optimize blood safety.