Search

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: Risk behavior-based donor selection procedures are widely used to mitigate the risk of transfusion-transmissible infections (TTIs), but their effectiveness is disputed in countries with low residual risks of TTIs., Study Design and Methods: In 1995 to 2014, Dutch blood donors infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV), or syphilis were interviewed by trained medical counselors to identify risk factors associated with TTIs. Trends in the prevalence and incidence of TTIs were analyzed using binomial regression models., Results: A total of 972 new donors and 381 repeat donors had TTIs. New donors had higher rates of TTIs compared to repeat donors. Although the HBV and HCV prevalence gradually decreased over time, the incidence of all five TTIs remained stable during the past two decades. In new donors the TTIs had the following risk profiles: "blood-blood contact" for HCV, "unprotected sex" for HIV and syphilis, and "country of birth" for HBV and HTLV. In infected repeat donors, sexual risk factors predominated for all TTIs. At posttest counseling, 28% of infected repeat donors admitted to risk factors leading to permanent donor exclusion if revealed during the donor selection procedure (predominantly male-to-male sex and recent diagnosis of syphilis)., Conclusion: The prevalence and incidence of TTIs among Dutch blood donors are six- to 60-fold lower than in the general Dutch population, illustrating the effectiveness of donor selection procedures. However, at least a quarter of infected donors appeared noncompliant to the donor health questionnaire (DHQ), suggesting that DHQs, or the way donor questioning is implemented, can be improved., (© 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.)