Are there ethical differences between stopping and not starting blood safety measures?

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.

An economic reappraisal of hepatitis B virus testing strategy for blood donors in Taiwan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Taiwan is among the few hepatitis B virus (HBV) high-endemic countries that implement universal mini-pool nucleic acid testing (MP-NAT) and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) testing together with confirmatory individual donor nucleic acid testing (ID-NAT) for its blood supply since 2013. The aim of this study was to reappraise the value of HBsAg test in Taiwan's HBV testing strategy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was constructed, and cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in order to reappraise the existing HBV screening strategy in Taiwan.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the current testing strategy in Taiwan was estimated to be $US 443 154 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. This is almost six times the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold that reflects local preferences.

CONCLUSION

Universal HBsAg and MP-8-NAT together with confirmatory ID-NAT testing prevents a significant amount of HBV infections from entering the Taiwan blood supply. However, this comes at a disproportionate increase in cost.

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.

Assessing the Threat: Public Health

This chapter describes three methods for assessing the impact of transfusion-transmitted infections on public health. In order of increasing precision and labor intensity, these tools are:

A blueprint for a structured, qualitative inventory and report, describing the relevant characteristics of the emerging agent, which helps to make ad hoc decisions and which identifies gaps in our knowledge.

Two more sophisticated “off the shelf” methods for the quantitative analysis of threats to blood safety are mentioned: the Biggerstaff-Petersen model and the European Up-Front Risk Assessment Tool (EUFRAT). The Biggerstaff-Petersen model estimates the number of potentially infectious donations, while EUFRAT also takes into account the components prepared from donations and the efficacy of various mitigating interventions.

Finally examples of quantitative studies of specific agents are mentioned: a donor-recipient transmission study and a cost-benefit modeling study. For this kind of analysis, no standardized recipe is available.

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.