Changing blood donor screening criteria from permanent deferral for men who have sex with men to individual sexual risk assessment: no evidence of a significant impact on the human immunodeficiency virus epidemic in Italy

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Other Sexual and Gender Minority Health Disparities: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other sexual and gender minorities (LGBTQ+) populations in the United States continue to experience disparities in health and health care. Discrimination in both health care and society at large negatively affects LGBTQ+ health. Although progress has been made in addressing health disparities and reducing social inequality for these populations, new challenges have emerged. There is a pressing need for physicians and other health professionals to take a stance against discriminatory policies as renewed federal and state public policy efforts increasingly impose medically unnecessary restrictions on the provision of gender-affirming care. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) reaffirms and updates much of its long-standing policy on LGBTQ+ health to strongly support access to evidence-based, clinically indicated gender-affirming care and oppose political efforts to interfere in the patient-physician relationship. Furthermore, ACP opposes institutional and legal restrictions on undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education and training on gender-affirming care and LGBTQ+ health issues. This paper also offers policy recommendations to protect the right of all people to participate in public life free from discrimination on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation and encourages the deployment of inclusive, nondiscriminatory, and evidence-based blood donation policies for members of LGBTQ+ communities. Underlying these beliefs is a reaffirmed commitment to promoting equitable access to quality care for all people regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

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.

Blood Donation and COVID-19: Reconsidering the 3-Month Deferral Policy for Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men

In April 2020, in light of COVID-19-related blood shortages, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reduced the deferral period for men who have sex with men (MSM) from its previous duration of 1 year to 3 months.Although originally born out of necessity, the decades-old restrictions on MSM donors have been mitigated by significant advancements in HIV screening, treatment, and public education. The severity of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic-and the urgent need for safe blood products to respond to such crises-demands an immediate reconsideration of the 3-month deferral policy for MSM.We review historical HIV testing and transmission evidence, discuss the ethical ramifications of the current deferral period, and examine the issue of noncompliance with donor deferral rules. We also propose an eligibility screening format that involves an individual risk-based screening protocol and, unlike current FDA guidelines, does not effectively exclude donors on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. Our policy proposal would allow historically marginalized community members to participate with dignity in the blood donation process without compromising blood donation and transfusion safety outcomes.

Barriers and enablers to source plasma donation by gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men under revised eligibility criteria: protocol for a multiple stakeholder feasibility study

Background

Blood donation policy in Canada for gay, bisexual and other men who have had sex with men (gbMSM) has changed progressively in the last decade from indefinite deferral to 3-month deferral from last male-to-male sex. Driven by safety data and overseen by the national regulator, more inclusive policies continue to redress the disparity in donation for gbMSM. At the same time, the need for source plasma to prepare fractionated blood products is growing worldwide. The collection and processing of source plasma ensures greater safety compared to whole blood donation with respect to transfusion-transmitted infection. This greater safety offers an opportunity to evolve policies for gbMSM from time-based to behaviour-based deferral using revised eligibility criteria. However, changing policies does not in itself necessarily guarantee that gbMSM will donate or that staff in donor clinics are ready to support them to do so. In anticipation of a move to behaviour-based donation screening for gbMSM in Canada, we aim to assess the acceptability of and perceived barriers and enablers to source plasma donation using revised screening criteria for gbMSM among key stakeholders to inform policy implementation strategies.

Methods

This mixed-methods feasibility study will involve gbMSM and donor centre staff to understand modifiable barriers to implementing more inclusive eligibility criteria. Key informant interviews and surveys will be rooted in the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify modifiable factors associated with source plasma donation motives in gbMSM and training needs in donation centre staff. We will use an integrated knowledge translation approach involving a partnership between researchers, the national blood operator and gbMSM, situating knowledge users as key research team members to ensure their perspectives inform all aspects of the research.

Discussion

Our integrated knowledge translation approach will provide a more comprehensive and collaborative understanding of blood operator and gbMSM needs while accelerating the implementation of study findings. Given the historical backdrop of the decades of exclusion of sexually active gbMSM from blood donation, this study has the potential not only to inform a process and policy for gbMSM to donate source plasma, a blood product, but also offers opportunities for new relationships between these knowledge users.

Prevalence, incidence and residual risk of transfusion-transmitted hepatitis C virus and human immunodeficiency virus after the implementation of nucleic acid testing in Italy: a 7-year (2009-2015) survey

BACKGROUND

In Italy nucleic acid testing (NAT) became mandatory for hepatitis C virus (HCV) in 2002 and for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B virus in 2008. The aim of this study was to monitor the incidence and prevalence of HIV and HCV infections in Italian blood donors and the current residual risk of these infections after the introduction of NAT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Italian national blood surveillance system includes data from tests used to screen for transfusion-transmissible infections. During the period of this survey (2009-2015), the NAT methods used were the transcription-mediated amplification test, for individual donor testing, and polymerase chain reaction analysis, mainly for pools of six donors. Prevalence and incidence were calculated. Three published formulae were applied to estimate the residual risk (the window period ratio model and the formulae recommended by the European Medicines Agency and the World Health Organization).

RESULTS

Overall, 12,258,587 blood donors and 21,808,352 donations were tested for HCV and HIV. The prevalence of HCV decreased from 110.3×10⁵ to 58.9×10⁵ in years 2009 and 2015, respectively, while that of HIV remained stable over time (15.5×10⁵ vs 15.4×10⁵). The incidence of HCV decreased from 3.19×10⁵ in 2009 to 1.58×10⁵ in 2015, while the incidence of HIV did not show any significant fluctuations (average incidence 4.39×10⁵). The residual risk of a viraemic unit entering the blood supply was estimated to be 0.077×10⁶ or 1 in 12,979,949 donations for HCV and 0.521×10⁶ or 1 in 1,917,250 for HIV, according to the window period ratio model, and lower with the other two formulae.

DISCUSSION

HCV infection has declined over time in both first-time and repeat donors, while the data for HIV infection are stable. All three methods employed in this study showed that the residual risk of transmitting HCV or HIV through an infected blood unit is currently very low in Italy, but there are considerable differences in estimates between methods. Thus, harmonisation of these methods is advisable.

What is the evidence for the change in the blood -donation deferral period for high-risk groups and does it go far enough?

In November 2017, the deferral on blood donations from high-risk groups in Great Britain was changed to 3 months from last at-risk sexual contact following recommendations from the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs. This represented a reduction from 12 months for men who have sex with men, and from a lifetime ban for sex workers. This is a step forward for equality and for reducing stigma around these groups. However, one argument for deferral is the prevalence of infections, which may not be identified due to the fallibility of current testing approaches. Clearly it is vital that the welfare of blood transfusion recipients is prioritised and they are not exposed to unacceptable risks. However, with the increasingly sophisticated technology used to screen blood, it can be argued that the evidence shows that the reduction in deferral does not go far enough.

Righting Anachronistic Exclusions: The Ethics of Blood Donation by MSM

Recently, the FDA announced that it would soon lift the long-standing lifetime ban on blood donation by men who have sex with men (MSM). Re-examining blood donation by MSM, it is clear that there are several ethical goods that must be balanced. Through balancing the primary duty to safety with the imperatives to craft a policy that is formally equal, upholds the public's trust, and is non-discriminatory, an ethical blood donation deferral guideline may be advanced, both for MSM and the population at large.

Is having sex with other men a risk factor for transfusion-transmissible infections in male blood donors in Western countries? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although increased prevalence of transfusion transmissible infections (TTI) among "men who have sex with men" (MSM) has been well documented, the exclusion of MSM as blood donors is contested. The aim of this systematic review is to find studies that describe the risk of TTI in MSM blood donors.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cinahl, and Web of Science, and used GRADE for determining evidence quality. We included studies comparing MSM and non-MSM blood donors (or people eligible to give blood), living in areas most relevant for our Blood Service.

RESULTS

Out of 18 987 articles, 14 observational studies were included. Two studies directly compared MSM with non-MSM donors showing that MSM donors have a statistically significant higher risk of HIV-1 infections. In one of these studies it was shown that this was related to recent (< 12 months) MSM contact. In two additional studies no evidence was shown in favour of a certain deferral period for MSM. Ten studies, applying permanent deferral for MSM, compared infected versus non-infected donors. One study found that MSM is a statistically significant risk factor for HIV-1 infection in blood donors. For other TTI such as HBV or HCV, an increased risk of infection could not be demonstrated, because the precision of the results was affected by the low numbers of donors with MSM as risk factor, or because of risk of bias in the included studies. All studies included low level evidence, because of risk of bias and imprecision of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality studies investigating the risk of TTI in MSM who donate blood are scarce. The available evidence suggests a link between MSM blood donors and HIV-1 infection, but is too limited to be able to unambiguously/clearly recommend a certain deferral policy.