Reinstatement and infectious disease rates among blood donors previously deferred under men who have sex with men time‐based deferral

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Over time, changes to the deferral policy for males who had sex with other males (MSM) allowed those reporting past MSM to donate if other eligibility criteria were met. We assessed the return rate after the removal of the MSM deferral and transfusion-transmissible infectious disease (TTID) rates in MSM compared to first-time male donors and donors overall. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Males presenting to donate at the American Red Cross and self-reported MSM between December 13, 2016 and December 31, 2024 were assessed. TTID rates were determined by evaluating all donors with donation results collected during defined deferral periods. Queries tracked subsequent donations/deferrals post-MSM deferral. RESULTS: Approximately, 9.1 million American Red Cross donors were screened for TTIDs; 0.04% self-identified as MSM. The overall rate of allogeneic donors who screened repeat reactive for markers for hepatits B virus (HBV), hepatits C virus (HCV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), human T-lymphotropic virus 1 and 2 (HTLV-1/2), and/or syphilis was 5.6%, 1.9%, and 1.8% among MSM, all donors, and first-time males, respectively. The most frequent marker detected among MSM donors was anti-Treponema pallidum, fo llowed by anti-HBc. There were no HBV, HCV, or HIV nucleic acid testing (NAT)-yield cases detected among MSM donors. Overall, only 10% of MSM donors attempted to donate after expiration/removal of their deferral. CONCLUSION: The low yield in MSM returns could be attributed to donors not being directly notified of their eligibility, knowledge of on-going deferrable risks, or other factors. Donors with a history of MSM were more likely to screen reactive for TTID marker(s), although not NAT-yield infections indicating absence of recent risk when compared to the overall donor population and first-time males.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.