Search

Background: Less discriminatory donor selection policies for men who have sex with men (MSM) may impact transfusion safety in terms of higher residual risks for known transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs), increased vulnerability toward new TTIs that are also transmitted via sex, and HIV infections masked by pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)., Study Design and Methods: TTI trends in Dutch donors were studied over a 13-year period (2011-2023), characterized by successive relaxations of MSM deferral criteria. Structured posttest counseling was performed to determine risk factors in TTI-positive donors. PrEP drug levels were measured in 9977 donations from male donors living in urban areas and in 67 donors with active or resolved syphilis., Results: HIV incidence (from 5.8 to 1.5 per 1,000,000 donor years (DY)) and HBV incidence (from 12.4 to 4.5 per 1,000,000 DY) in Dutch donors decreased with less stringent MSM deferral criteria, while syphilis prevalence (from 26.4 to 44.1 per 100,000 new donors) and syphilis incidence (from 18.3 to 46.3 per 1,000,000 DY) increased over time. The proportion of MSM-related syphilis rose from 2% to 32% in new donors and from 12% to 27% in repeat donors. PrEP was detected in 2 of 9977 (0.02%) donations from male donors living in urban areas, and in 1 of 39 (2.6%) male donors with syphilis., Discussion: To date, phasing out donor deferral for MSM had no significant impact on transfusion safety in the Netherlands. However, rising syphilis rates and (recent) PrEP use in the blood donor population, albeit rare, suggest an influx of donors with higher sexual risk profiles and requires intensified TTI surveillance in donors., (© 2024 AABB.)

Background: In the Netherlands, blood donor screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) consists of HBsAg screening since the 1970s, HBV DNA minipool testing (MP-NAT) since 2008, and anti-HBc screening since 2011. Anti-HBc reactivity causes deferral only if anti-HBs titers are <200 IU/mL, or when anti-HBc was acquired during follow-up., Study Design and Methods: Over 5.5 million donations from 582,459 Dutch donors were screened for HBV DNA, HBsAg, anti-HBc, and, if anti-HBc positive, also for anti-HBs. The added value, expressed as the yield of (potentially) infectious and/or recent HBV infections versus unnecessary donor loss, was evaluated for each of the three HBV screening tests., Results: HBV donor screening identified 89 HBV-infected donors with at least two reactive HBV markers (MP-NAT, HBsAg and/or anti-HBc). Single HBV-marker yield was: 5 MP-NAT-only, 0 HBsAg-only, and 20 anti-HBc-only donors. In addition, anti-HBc screening yielded 1,067 potentially infectious donors at risk for occult HBV infection (OBI). In total, 4,126 (0.71%) donors were anti-HBc-reactive at first-time screening, and 1,098 (0.19%) seroconverted during follow-up. Anti-HBc-related donor loss was limited to 2,627 (0.45%) donors using anti-HBs titers and two-strike programs. Donor loss due to MP-NAT and HBsAg screening was extremely low: 0 and 128 donors, respectively., Conclusion: HBV donor screening could be limited to MP-NAT and anti-HBc screening. MP-NAT and anti-HBc improved blood safety by intercepting infectious donations from donors with recent infection or OBI, while HBsAg did not. Unnecessary donor loss related to anti-HBc screening is substantial but does not endanger the continuity of the blood supply., (© 2021 AABB.)

Background: The incidence of hepatitis E virus (HEV) has increased substantially in Europe recently, thereby threatening blood safety. A cost-effectiveness analysis for HEV screening of blood donations in the Netherlands was performed., Study Design and Methods: A simulation model was developed to mimic the process of donation, infections in the donor population, donation testing, and transmission to transfusion recipients. The variability of viral loads among donors was modeled using observed loads. The number of (incurable) chronic HEV infections among organ and stem cell transplant patients and the costs avoided by implementing blood screening were estimated., Results: HEV screening of whole blood donations in pools of 24 would prevent 4.52 of the 4.94 transfusion-associated chronic HEV infections expected annually, at approximately €310,000 per prevented chronic case. Per case not curable by ribavirin prevention, costs are approximately 10 times higher. Selective screening, if logistically feasible, could reduce screening costs by 85%. Sensitivity analyses show that uncertainty in the HEV transmissibility and the frequency of HEV clearing greatly impact the estimated cost-effectiveness. Of all HEV infections nationwide one in 700 is estimated to be due to blood transfusion, while for chronic infections this is one in 3.5., Conclusion: Despite uncertainties in our estimates, preventing HEV transmission by screening of blood donations appears not excessively expensive compared to other blood-screening measures in the Netherlands. However, the impact on HEV disease burden may be relatively small as only a minority of all HEV cases is transmitted by blood transfusion., (© 2017 AABB.)

Background: Hepatitis E virus (HEV) Genotype 3 (G3) infection is a zoonosis that may be transmitted during the acute phase by transfusion. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of HEV and seroprevalence among Irish blood donors., Study Design and Methods: Anonymized samples from 1076 donations collected in 2012 were tested for HEV immunoglobulin (Ig)G using the Wantai enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. A total of 24,985 anonymized donations collected between December 2013 and June 2014 were individually tested for HEV RNA using the Procleix HEV assay; reactive donations were confirmed by an in-house real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test., Results: Seroprevalence for anti-IgG was 5.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0%-6.8%), ranging from 1.1% in the 18- to 29-years age group to 33.3% in males over 60 years. HEV RNA screening of 24,985 samples yielded five PCR-confirmed donations (1:4997, 0.02%; 95% CI, 0.0065%-0.0467%), only one of which was serologically reactive (HEV IgM reactive only). Viral loads ranged from 10 to 44,550 IU/mL. Genotype analysis on three samples identified HEV G3 virus. Four of the five viremic donations were from donors in the 18- to 29-years age group (p = 0.01)., Conclusion: Seroprevalence for anti-HEV IgG was low compared to some European countries, but 1 in 5000 donations was viremic. Viremia was predominantly in younger Irish donors. After Department of Health approval the Irish Blood Transfusion Service implemented individual blood donation HEV RNA screening initially for a 3-year period from January 2016., (© 2016 AABB.)

Background: Hepatitis E virus genotype-3 (HEV-gt-3) causes autochthonous infections in western countries, with a primary reservoir in animals, especially pigs. HEV transfusion transmission has been reported, and HEV-gt-3 prevalence is high in some European countries. The prevalence of HEV RNA was investigated among Danish blood donors, and the prevalence of HEV transfusion-transmitted infection (TTI) was investigated among recipients., Study Design and Methods: Samples from 25,637 consenting donors collected during 1 month in 2015 were screened retrospectively using an individual-donation HEV RNA nucleic acid test with a 95% detection probability of 7.9 IU/mL. HEV-positive samples were quantified by real-time polymerase chain reaction and genotyped. Transmission was evaluated among recipients of HEV RNA-positive blood components. Phylogenetic analyses compared HEV sequences from blood donors, symptomatic patients, and swine., Results: Eleven donations (0.04%) were confirmed as positive for HEV RNA (median HEV RNA level, 13 IU/mL). Two donations were successfully genotyped as HEV-gt-3. Only one donor had a travel history outside Europe. Nine of 11 donors were male, but the gender ratio was nonsignificant compared with the total donor population. Seven available recipients tested negative for HEV RNA and anti-HEV immunoglobulin M in follow-up samples. One recipient was HEV RNA-negative but anti-HEV immunoglobulin G-positive. HEV TTI was considered unlikely, but a transfusion-induced secondary immune response could not be excluded. Phylogenetic analysis showed relatively large sequence differences between HEV from donors, symptomatic patients, and swine., Conclusions: Despite an HEV RNA prevalence of 0.04% in Danish blood donations, all HEV-positive donations carried low viral loads, and no evidence of TTI was found., (© 2016 AABB.)

Background: The incidence of hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection in the Netherlands is high. Blood donors are not routinely screened for HEV infection, but since January 2013, donations used for the production of solvent/detergent (S/D)-treated plasma have been screened for HEV RNA., Study Design and Methods: Donations were screened for HEV RNA in pools of 96 and 192 donations. In addition, all donations made between 60 days before and after each HEV RNA-positive donation were tested individually for HEV RNA and anti-HEV immunoglobulin G., Results: The screening of 59,474 donations between January 2013 and December 2014 resulted in identification of 45 HEV RNA-positive donations (0.076%) from 41 donors. HEV RNA loads ranged from 80 to 2.3 × 10(6) IU/mL. The number of positive donations increased significantly over time (p = 0.03). Thirty-three of 90 donations made up to 60 days before or after HEV RNA-positive donations were positive when tested individually, while they had not been detected in the pool screening. The mean duration of HEV viremia in the healthy blood donor is estimated to be 68 days., Conclusion: The incidence of HEV infection in the Netherlands is high and increased during the study period. In 2013 and 2014, HEV RNA was detected in 1 per 762 donations intended for production of S/D plasma., (© 2015 AABB.)

Background: Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is a nonenveloped emerging virus of increasing worldwide interest. Antibody prevalence, RNA frequencies, and transfusion transmissions have been reported. We investigated the HEV RNA and antibody frequencies in US blood donors., Study Design and Methods: Individual-donation HEV RNA testing was performed on 18,829 donations from six US geographic regions using a CE-marked nucleic acid test (95% limit of detection, 7.9 IU/mL). Repeat-reactive donations were confirmed by in-house, real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR; 10.3 IU/mL). Total HEV seroprevalence in a randomly selected subset of donations (n = 4499) was assessed by a direct, double-antigen sandwich assay; reactives were further tested for immunoglobulin (Ig)G and IgM. As part of the total antibody confirmatory algorithm, the cutoff was adjusted., Results: Two donations tested confirmed-positive for RNA (PCR not quantifiable, IgM/IgG positive; and 14 IU/mL, antibody negative) for a frequency of 1 in 9500 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1:2850-1:56,180) and 99.96% specificity (95% CI, 99.92%-99.98%); both donors were from the Midwest United States. Antibody prevalence was 9.5% (95% CI, 8.7-10.5) before the cutoff adjustment and 7.7% (95% CI, 7.0%-8.5%) after adjustment; 0.58% (95% CI, 0.39%-0.85%) were IgM positive., Conclusions: We confirmed comparatively low rates and low viral loads of HEV RNA in US blood donors indicating the need for individual-donation testing if screening is implemented. Antibody prevalence rates were comparable to those reported by one US study using a different assay, but lower than those reported in another study using yet a third assay. We did not answer the question of whether US blood donation screening is warranted. Selective strategies involving providing HEV-negative blood to severely immunosuppressed patients at risk of developing hepatitis may be considered., (© 2015 AABB.)

Background: In the Netherlands, universal antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc) donor screening was introduced in July 2011 to intercept potentially infectious donations slipping through hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA minipool screening (HBV DNA MP6)., Study Design and Methods: The yield and donor loss were evaluated after the first 2 years of universal anti-HBc donor screening. A total of 382,173 donors were tested for anti-HBc and, if positive, for antibody to HBsAg (anti-HBs). Anti-HBc-reactive donors with anti-HBs of less than 200 IU/L were deferred, but repeat donors were allowed retesting after 6 months if anti-HBs was less than 10 IU/mL. Anti-HBc false positivity was estimated using the crude anti-HBc signal, family name-based ethnicity scoring, and donor follow-up., Results: Anti-HBc screening identified 13 confirmed or potential HBsAg- and HBV DNA MP6-negative recent HBV infections. In addition, 820 anti-HBc-reactive donors with low anti-HBs titers (<200 IU/mL), potentially harboring occult HBV infection (OBI), were identified and deferred. Overall, 1583 (0.41%) donors were deferred: 1178 (0.31%) during first-time anti-HBc screening, 361 (0.09%) anti-HBc seroconverters, and 44 (0.01%) donors with waning anti-HBs titers. Only 188 of 1583 (12%) deferred donors could be reentered upon retesting. Estimated anti-HBc false positivity was 16%, but varied greatly among anti-HBc-reactive donors with and without anti-HBs (8% vs. 62%)., Conclusion: Anti-HBc testing has improved the safety of the Dutch blood supply but its exact yield remains difficult to determine, due to the complexity of confirming anti-HBc reactivity and OBI. In a low-endemic country, donor loss associated with anti-HBc screening is sustainable, but adds to the already considerable list of donor exclusions., (© 2014 AABB.)

Background: Recent studies show that endemic hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection occurs frequently in some developed countries. In the Netherlands in 2013, the routine screening of 35,220 plasma donations for HEV RNA showed 20 donors to be viremic (1:1761), which seems to contradict reports of declining HEV seroprevalence in the recent past., Study Design and Methods: To asses HEV infection pressure changes over time, archived samples from Dutch blood donations collected in 1988 and 2000 were tested for anti-HEV immunoglobulin (Ig)G. The findings were compared to the HEV seroprevalence among donors in 2011., Results: The age-adjusted prevalence of anti-HEV IgG for Dutch donors aged 18 to 64 declined from 46.6% in 1988 to 27.3% in 2000 and to 20.9% in 2011. The reduction of seroprevalence was apparent for all age groups between 1988 and 2000, and for donors older than 40 between 2000 and 2011, but the seroprevalence among donors aged 18 to 29 increased between 2000 and 2011. Recent changes in HEV infection pressure are more apparent in the youngest donors, who to a lesser extent reflect cumulative exposure to HEV in the past. Donors aged 18 to 21 showed decreasing HEV seroprevalence from 19.8% in 1988 to 7.0% in 1995 and to 4.3% in 2000, followed by an increase to 12.7% in 2011., Conclusion: HEV antibody patterns in young and old Dutch donors, in 1988 to 2011, suggest that decades ago, HEV was ubiquitous and most persons acquired infection. Subsequently HEV incidence was low during a prolonged period, to increase again in recent years., (© 2014 The Authors. Transfusion published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AABB.)

Background: The Netherlands experienced major Q fever outbreaks from 2007 through 2009. An increasing number of human chronic Q fever cases has been reported in the affected area. Blood donors unaware of chronic Coxiella burnetii infection might be infectious for transfusion recipients. Local blood donations were screened for serologic signs of chronic Coxiella infection., Study Design and Methods: From August 2012 through January 2013, a total of 2490 serum samples were collected from all consenting blood donors in the most affected Q fever outbreak area and screened for Phase II anti-Coxiella immunoglobulin G antibodies using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). (Phase II antibodies are considered indicative for resolved or ongoing Coxiella infection.) Reactive samples were confirmed by quantitative immunofluorescent Phase I and II antibody testing. A Phase I antibody titer of at least 1024 was considered indicative for chronic Coxiella infection. For 179 donors archived samples from 2009 and 2010 were available to study the long-term course of Coxiella antibodies., Results: A total of 110 of 2490 donors were confirmed positive for Phase II Coxiella antibodies (4.4%; 95% confidence interval, 3.7%-5.3%), of which 79 were reactive for Phase I antibodies, with a maximum titer of 256. In 15 of 24 donors (62.5%), testing positive for Phase II antibodies in 2009 and 2010, ELISA reactivity had declined to negativity in 2012 and 2013., Conclusion: After large Q fever outbreaks in the Netherlands, no sign of potentially infectious chronic Coxiella infection was found among blood donors in the most affected area. Using an ELISA for detection, Coxiella antibodies in previously exposed donors waned quickly., (© 2014 AABB.)

Background: Since 2007, large outbreaks of Q fever occurred in the Netherlands. The unprecedented number of Q fever infections resulted in the need for the Dutch blood transfusion service to evaluate the risk of transmission of Coxiella burnetii via blood., Study Design and Methods: A lookback procedure (recipient tracing) was performed for transfused blood products of whole blood donors with confirmed C. burnetii infection within 3 weeks before to 3 weeks after blood donation. Repository samples of index donations were tested with real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for C. burnetii DNA. Hospitals were asked to review the medical records of recipients and-if considered necessary-to test the recipients for infection with C. burnetii., Results: From 2007 through 2011, a total of 33 blood donors notified the blood bank of infection with C. burnetii. Thirteen donations fulfilled the criteria for a lookback procedure (18 blood products). C. burnetii PCR was positive in 1 of 13 repository samples of index donations. Blood products were transfused to 18 recipients. Information was retrieved from 12 of them; seven were tested for C. burnetii. Two recipients showed positive serology. However, transmission of C. burnetii via transfusion was unlikely, especially since most recipients lived in the same Q fever-affected area as the donors., Conclusion: Blood donors who have clinical Q fever around the time of blood donation are unlikely to test positive for C. burnetii by PCR in repository samples. Transmission of C. burnetii via transfusion of blood products could not be demonstrated in a lookback exercise., (© 2012 American Association of Blood Banks.)

Background: In 2007, 2008, and 2009 outbreaks of Q-fever occurred in The Netherlands with increasing magnitude. The 2009 outbreak with 2354 reported cases is the largest human Q-fever outbreak ever recorded. To assess the extent of infection and the safety of donated blood, we tested local blood donations for presence of Coxiella burnetii antibodies and DNA., Study Design and Methods: Starting May 2009, more than 40,000 serum samples were collected from all consenting blood donors in the areas with high Q-fever incidence. The 1004 samples from the areas with the highest number of reported cases were tested for C. burnetii DNA by polymerase chain reaction; seroprevalence and incidence were determined using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and immunofluorescence assays (IFAs) in the subset of 543 donors of whom a follow-up sample was available., Results: A total of 6 of 1004 donor samples tested reactive for C. burnetii DNA. Confirmatory testing (IFA) on the index and follow-up samples demonstrated seroconversion in two donors, high-level preexisting antibodies in one donor, and no seroconversion in three donors. Immunoglobulin (Ig)G testing of the 543 serum pairs showed that 66 were reactive in the latest sample, of which 10 represented seroconversions., Conclusion: In the area with highest incidence during a large Q-fever outbreak, 3 of 1004 blood donations contained C. burnetii DNA (0.3%; 95% confidence interval, 0.1%-1.0%). A total of 66 of 543 (12.2%) donors tested positive for anti-Coxiella IgG. Ten seroconversions were detected, resulting in an incidence of 5.7% per year, which is more than 10-fold higher than the local number of reported clinical cases (0.47% per year)., (© 2011 American Association of Blood Banks.)