BACKGROUND:Currently in Australia, men are deferred from donating blood if they have had sex with another man within the past 3  months. However, a proposed gender-neutral assessment (GNA) process will ask all donors questions about sex with new or multiple recent partners, with deferral based on responses to a question about anal sex. Understanding the acceptability of such questions among existing and potential blood donors is paramount for successful implementation of GNA. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS:We used data from a nationally representative survey to estimate the levels of comfort with the proposed GNA questions among the Australian population and subgroups, defined by self-reported ethnicity and religion. Respondents were aged over 18 and living in Australia. Results were weighted to represent the population. RESULTS:Most of the 5178 respondents described themselves as comfortable with answering questions about new partners (73.1%) or anal sex (64.0%) to donate blood. However, 2.2% and 4.5% indicated that questions about new sex partners and anal sex, respectively, would stop them from donating, and 4.4% and 7.7% respectively, said they were "completely uncomfortable." By religion, the least comfortable were Muslim or Eastern Orthodox respondents, and by country of birth, the least comfortable were those born in the Middle East, followed by those born in Southern Europe and Asia. DISCUSSION:GNA appears to be broadly acceptable in the Australian context, but our findings suggest that key GNA questions are less acceptable in some population subgroups, indicating a need for targeted campaigns that consider cultural sensitivities.

Background and ObjectivesIn July 2019, Australia removed the upper age limit for returning donors (previously 80 years) and increased the upper age for new donors from 70 to 75 years. This study assessed the safety of our new policy for our newly eligible upper age donors (NEUADs).Materials and MethodsFor the period, 14 July 2019 to 30 June 2023, the relative risk (RR) of individual adverse events in NEUADs was compared with younger cohorts.ResultsThere were 4529 NEUADs who made 8000 donations. The overall rates of vasovagal reactions (VVRs) were significantly lower in the NEUAD cohort. However, compared with younger donors; returning NEUADs had a significantly higher rate of loss of consciousness (RR 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-4.86) and new NEUADs had a significantly higher rate of offsite VVRs (RR 1.60; 95% CI: 1.08-2.37). Both new and returning NEUADs had significantly higher rates of VVR requiring outside medical care (RR 2.48; 95% CI: 1.28-4.79 and RR 4.45; 95% CI: 2.00-9.91 respectively).ConclusionOur findings support historical findings that overall VVR rates decline with age but suggest a higher risk of more serious VVRs.

BACKGROUND:In Australia, a man cannot donate blood if he has had sex with another man within the past 3 months. However, this policy has been criticized as being discriminatory as it does not consider lower risk subgroups, and led to calls for modifications to the policy that more accurately distinguish risk among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS:We used data from a nationally representative survey to estimate the proportion of GBM aged 18-74 years old who would be eligible to donate under current criteria and other scenarios. RESULTS:Among the 5178 survey participants, 155 (3.0%) were classified as GBM based on survey responses, Among the GBM, 40.2% (95% CI 28.0%-53.7%) were eligible to donate based on current criteria, and 21.0% (95% CI 14.5%-29.5%) were ineligible due to the 3 months deferral alone. Eligibility among GBM, all men, and the population increased as criteria were removed. Under the new Australian plasma donation criteria, 73.6% (95% CI 64.4%-81.1%) of GBM, 68.4% (95% CI 65.5%-71.2%) of all men, and 60.8% (95% CI 58.8%-62.8%) of the full population were estimated to be eligible. Only 16.1% (95% CI 8.6%-28.1%) of GBM knew that the male-to-male sex deferral period is 3 months. DISCUSSION:Changing the deferral criteria and sexual risk evaluation would lead to a higher proportion of GBM being eligible to donate blood. Knowledge of the current GBM deferral period is very low. Improved education about the current criteria and any future changes are required to improve blood donation rates.

Background and ObjectivesTo reduce the risk of transfusion-transmitted malaria (TTM) from transfusible components, Australia tests for malaria antibodies in both travellers returning from and former residents of malaria-endemic areas. The testing is performed a minimum of 120 days after last potential exposure. TTM is an extremely rare event and managing the risk adds considerable complexity. The objectives of this study were to analyse various testing and deferral strategies, considering the risk, donation numbers and operational complexities.Materials and MethodsA residual risk model was developed to calculate the risk of TTM in five testing/deferral strategies. Australian blood donor data from 2020 and 2021 were used and incorporated the incidence of parasitaemia, Plasmodium species and the malaria enzyme immunoassay test's failure rate. Donor and donation loss or gain and an operational assessment were performed.ResultsThe current model's estimated risk of TTM is 1 in 67.9 million transfused units. Testing residents with a 120-day plasma restriction for visitors without testing was found to have the same estimated risk, with an expected increase of 342 donations per year, significant cost savings and a 62% reduction in the number of donors requiring assessment.ConclusionA strategy that involves testing residents of malaria areas only and a 120-day plasma travel restriction would not significantly increase the risk of TTM, is operationally simpler, costs less and results in a small increase in donations.

Many blood establishments are expanding plasmapheresis collection capacity to achieve increasing plasma for fractionation volume targets, driven by immunoglobulin product demand. Some adverse events occur in both apheresis and whole blood collection, such as venepuncture-related trauma and vasovagal reactions. Others are specifically related to the apheresis procedure, such as citrate reactions, haemolysis, infiltration and air embolism. Whilst plasmapheresis procedures are generally well tolerated, theoretical longer term donor health considerations, such as the effects on donor plasma protein levels, bone mineral density, iron deficiency and malignancy also require consideration. An evidence-based framework that supports a safe and sustainable increase in the collection of plasma is essential. Our review demonstrates a lack of high-quality evidence on risks and outcomes specifically in plasmapheresis. Whilst conservative procedural controls and donor harm minimization policies will mitigate risk, high-quality evidence is needed to facilitate practice change that is safe and sustainable and maximizes the potential of individual donor differences.

Passive immunisation with normal human immunoglobulin (NHIG) is recommended as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for higher-risk measles contacts where vaccination is contraindicated. However, the concentration of measles-specific antibodies in NHIG depends on antibody levels within pooled donor plasma. There are concerns that measles immunity in the Australian population may be declining over time and that blood donors’ levels will progressively decrease, impacting levels required to produce effective NHIG for measles PEP. A cross-sectional study of Australian plasmapheresis donors was performed using an age-stratified, random sample of recovered serum specimens, collected between October and November 2019 (n = 1199). Measles-specific IgG antibodies were quantified by ELISA (Enzygnost anti-measles virus IgG, Siemens), and negative and equivocal specimens (n = 149) also underwent plaque reduction neutralisation testing (PRNT). Mean antibody levels (optical density values) progressively decreased from older to younger birth cohorts, from 2.09 [±0.09, 95% CI] to 0.58 [±0.04, 95% CI] in donors born in 1940–1959 and 1990–2001, respectively (p < 0.0001). This study shows that mean measles-specific IgG levels are significantly lower in younger Australian donors. While current NHIG selection policies target older donors, as younger birth cohorts become an increasingly larger proportion of contributing donors, measles-specific antibody concentrations of NHIG will progressively reduce. We therefore recommend monitoring measles-specific antibody levels in future donors and NHIG products in Australia and other countries that eliminated measles before the birth of their youngest blood donors.

Background and ObjectivesTattooing is one of the leading donor deferral reasons in Australia. Until September 2020, donors were deferred from all donation types for 4 months after a tattoo. At this time, our guideline changed such that donations of plasma for further manufacture were accepted immediately, provided the tattoo was administered in a licensed or regulated Australian establishment. We examined the effects of this change.Materials and MethodsDonors with a tattoo deferral in the 2 years before or after the guideline change were identified and followed up until 3 November 2022. Between the two periods, we compared blood-borne virus (BBV) incidence, donor return, and the number of donors and donations regained after deferral.ResultsThe incidence of BBV infection in donors after a tattoo deferral was zero in both periods. To exceed a residual risk of 1 in 1 million for hepatitis C virus, 190 donors would need to be infected yearly from a tattoo. Donors returned to donate significantly faster after the change (median return 85 days compared with 278 days). An extra 187 donations per 10,000 person-years of observation were gained, yielding a total of 44,674 additional plasma donations nationally 0-4 months after getting a tattoo.ConclusionAllowing plasma donations immediately post-tattoo resulted in a substantial donation gain with no adverse safety effect. Lifeblood subsequently reduced the deferral for transfusible component donations to 7 days for tattoos in Australian licensed/regulated establishments.

Introduction Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) is a mosquito-borne flavivirus that causes encephalitis and other morbidity in Southeast Asia. Since February 2022, geographically dispersed JEV human, animal and vector detections occurred on the Australian mainland for the first time. This study will determine the prevalence of JEV-specific antibodies in human blood with a focus on populations at high risk of JEV exposure and determine risk factors associated with JEV seropositivity by location, age, occupation and other factors.Method Samples are collected using two approaches: from routine blood donors (4153 samples), and active collections targeting high-risk populations (convenience sampling). Consent-based sampling for the latter includes a participant questionnaire on demographic, vaccination and exposure data. Samples are tested for JEV-specific total antibody using a defined epitope-blocking ELISA, and total antibody to Australian endemic flaviviruses Murray Valley encephalitis and Kunjin viruses.Analysis Two analytic approaches will occur: descriptive estimates of seroprevalence and multivariable logistic regression using Bayesian hierarchical models. Descriptive analyses will include unadjusted analysis of raw data with exclusions for JEV-endemic country of birth, travel to JEV-endemic countries, prior JEV-vaccination, and sex-standardised and age-standardised analyses. Multivariable logistic regression will determine which risk factors are associated with JEV seropositivity likely due to recent transmission within Australia and the relative contribution of each factor when accounting for effects within the model.Ethics National Mutual Acceptance ethical approval was obtained from the Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). Local approvals were sought in each jurisdiction. Ethical approval was also obtained from the Australian Red Cross Lifeblood HREC.Dissemination Findings will be communicated to participants and their communities, and human and animal health stakeholders and policy-makers iteratively and after final analyses. Understanding human infection rates will inform procurement and targeted allocation of limited JEV vaccine, and public health strategies and communication campaigns, to at-risk populations.

Background and Objectives: Until 25 July 2022, Australians who had spent more than 6 months in the United Kingdom or territories between 1980 and 1996 were deferred from blood donation due to the risk of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Removal of this geography-based donor deferral on RhD-negative blood availability has not been reported. Materials and Methods: All donors who donated at least once from 25 July 2022 to 25 July 2023 were included. UK donor status, first-time donor and ABO RhD data were extracted from the National Blood Management System. Results: Data from 566,447 blood donors with a valid ABO RhD result were analysed. Of these, 34,560 were new or returning lapsed donors following removal of the UK donor deferral. The median age [range] in years for all donors was 43 [75] with UK donors being older 53 [70]. There was a higher prevalence of RhD-negative status in UK donors (20.2%) compared with first-time blood donors (15.7%). Conclusion: UK donors were generally older, female and more likely to be RhD-negative. Although UK donors provided a boost to RhD-negative blood collections, the overall prevalence of ABO RhD blood groups in the total Australian blood donor panel remained similar to previous estimates.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:The risk of transfusion-transmitted malaria (TTM) infections is extremely low in Australia, and the cost-effectiveness of the current screening strategy has not been assessed. This study aims to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of different malaria screening strategies in blood donors as part of the risk-based decision-making framework. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A decision tree model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of five alternative malaria screening strategies from a healthcare sector perspective. Screening strategies combining total or partial removal of malaria testing with different deferral periods were considered. The probabilities of developing severe and uncomplicated TTM were based on a literature review of cases in non-endemic areas since 2000. The health outcomes were quantified using disability-adjusted life years. The costs of non-returning donors due to deferral were also included. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for data uncertainty. RESULTS:The residual risks for all strategies were so low that the costs, mortality and morbidity associated with TTM are almost negligible. The overall costs were predominantly influenced by the costs of non-returning blood donors. As a result, removal of malaria testing and applying a 28-day deferral for at-risk donors were the least costly and most cost-effective of all the options considered. CONCLUSION:The current screening strategy for malaria in blood donors in Australia is not an efficient use of healthcare resources. Partial or total removal of malaria testing would bring significant cost savings without significantly compromising blood safety.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:The risk of transfusion-transmitted hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections is extremely low in Australia. This study aims to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of different testing strategies for HCV infection in blood donations. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The four testing strategies evaluated in this study were universal testing with both HCV antibody (anti-HCV) and nucleic acid testing (NAT); anti-HCV and NAT for first-time donations and NAT only for repeat donations; anti-HCV and NAT for transfusible component donations and NAT only for plasma for further manufacture; and universal testing with NAT only. A decision-analytical model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative HCV testing strategies. Sensitivity analysis and threshold analysis were conducted to account for data uncertainty. RESULTS:The number of potential transfusion-transmitted cases of acute hepatitis C and chronic hepatitis C was approximately zero in all four strategies. Universal testing with NAT only was the most cost-effective strategy due to the lowest testing cost. The threshold analysis showed that for the current practice to be cost-effective, the residual risks of other testing strategies would have to be at least 1 HCV infection in 2424 donations, which is over 60,000 times the baseline residual risk (1 in 151 million donations). CONCLUSION:The screening strategy for HCV in blood donations currently implemented in Australia is not cost-effective compared with targeted testing or universal testing with NAT only. Partial or total removal of anti-HCV testing would bring significant cost savings without compromising blood recipient safety.

Background and ObjectivesUntil 25 July 2022, people who spent more than 6 months in the United Kingdom during the variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) risk period 1980-1996 (UK donors) were deferred from blood donation in Australia. Regulatory approval to remove the deferral was underpinned by published mathematical modelling predicting negligible vCJD transmission risk increase with a gain of 58,000 donations. Materials and MethodsThe donor questionnaire retained the UK deferral screening question until a version update effective 12 February 2023, which enabled identification of the newly eligible cohort of UK donors. Their donations were tracked for a 6-month period (25 July 2022-24 January 2023) and compared with baseline Lifeblood donation metrics and predicted gains. ResultsA total of 38,462 UK donors attended to donate 78,762 times in the 6 months. Of these, 32,358 donors (females = 19,456, males = 12,902) successfully donated 67,914 times representing 8.4% of total collections. ConclusionCessation of the UK deferral resulted in donation gains exceeding modelled predictions because of a higher than predicted number of donors who donated at a higher rate. Had these newly eligible donors not donated, overall donation numbers would have been 88% of target rather than the 96% achieved.

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.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Parallel testing of blood donations for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody and HCV RNA by nucleic acid testing (NAT) has been standard practice in Australia since 2000. Meanwhile, NAT technologies have improved, and HCV has become a curable disease. This has resulted in a significant reduction in the risk and clinical consequences of HCV transmission through transfusion. This study aimed to estimate the residual risk (RR) under various testing options to determine the optimal testing strategy.MATERIALS AND METHODS:A developed deterministic model calculated the RR of HCV transmission for four testing strategies. A low, mid and high estimate of the RR was calculated for each. The testing strategies modelled were as follows: universal dual testing, targeted dual testing for higher risk groups (first-time donors or transfusible component donations) and universal NAT only.RESULTS:The mid estimate of the RR was 1 in 151 million for universal dual testing, 1 in 111 million for targeted dual testing of first-time donors, 1 in 151 million for targeted dual testing for transfusible component donations and 1 in 66 million for universal NAT only. For all testing strategies, all estimates were considerably less than 1 in 1 million.CONCLUSION:Antibody testing in addition to NAT does not materially change the risk profile. Even conservative estimates for the cessation of anti-HCV predict an HCV transmission risk substantially below 1 in 1 million. Therefore, given that it is not contributing to blood safety in Australia but consuming resources, anti-HCV testing can safely be discontinued.

TransfusionVolume 63, Issue S5 p. 15A-16A SUPPLEMENT ARTICLE OA3-AM23-SN-19 | Japanese Encephalitis Virus Antibody Seroprevalence Among Blood Donors Following an Outbreak of Infections in Southern and Eastern Parts of Australia R. Hirani, R. Hirani Australian Red Cross LifebloodSearch for more papers by this authorN. Winkler, N. Winkler National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS)Search for more papers by this authorJ. Baker, J. Baker University of SydneySearch for more papers by this authorL. Hueston, L. Hueston Westmead HospitalSearch for more papers by this authorA. Koirala, A. Koirala National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS)Search for more papers by this authorM. O'Sullivan, M. O'Sullivan Westmead HospitalSearch for more papers by this authorV. Hoad, V. Hoad Australian Red Cross LifebloodSearch for more papers by this authorD. Irving, D. Irving Australian Red Cross LifebloodSearch for more papers by this authorI. Gosbell, I. Gosbell 1. Australian Red Cross Lifeblood; 2. School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorK. Macartney, K. Macartney National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS)Search for more papers by this author R. Hirani, R. Hirani Australian Red Cross LifebloodSearch for more papers by this authorN. Winkler, N. Winkler National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS)Search for more papers by this authorJ. Baker, J. Baker University of SydneySearch for more papers by this authorL. Hueston, L. Hueston Westmead HospitalSearch for more papers by this authorA. Koirala, A. Koirala National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS)Search for more papers by this authorM. O'Sullivan, M. O'Sullivan Westmead HospitalSearch for more papers by this authorV. Hoad, V. Hoad Australian Red Cross LifebloodSearch for more papers by this authorD. Irving, D. Irving Australian Red Cross LifebloodSearch for more papers by this authorI. Gosbell, I. Gosbell 1. Australian Red Cross Lifeblood; 2. School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorK. Macartney, K. Macartney National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS)Search for more papers by this author First published: 12 October 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.7_17554Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume63, IssueS5October 2023Pages 15A-16A RelatedInformation