Dataset Information

Efficiency and safety of varying the frequency of whole blood donation (INTERVAL): a randomised trial of 45?000 donors.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Limits on the frequency of whole blood donation exist primarily to safeguard donor health. However, there is substantial variation across blood services in the maximum frequency of donations allowed. We compared standard practice in the UK with shorter inter-donation intervals used in other countries.

Methods

In this parallel group, pragmatic, randomised trial, we recruited whole blood donors aged 18 years or older from 25 centres across England, UK. By use of a computer-based algorithm, men were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 12-week (standard) versus 10-week versus 8-week inter-donation intervals, and women were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 16-week (standard) versus 14-week versus 12-week intervals. Participants were not masked to their allocated intervention group. The primary outcome was the number of donations over 2 years. Secondary outcomes related to safety were quality of life, symptoms potentially related to donation, physical activity, cognitive function, haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations, and deferrals because of low haemoglobin. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN24760606, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants.

Findings

45?263 whole blood donors (22?466 men, 22?797 women) were recruited between June 11, 2012, and June 15, 2014. Data were analysed for 45?042 (99·5%) participants. Men were randomly assigned to the 12-week (n=7452) versus 10-week (n=7449) versus 8-week (n=7456) groups; and women to the 16-week (n=7550) versus 14-week (n=7567) versus 12-week (n=7568) groups. In men, compared with the 12-week group, the mean amount of blood collected per donor over 2 years increased by 1·69 units (95% CI 1·59-1·80; approximately 795 mL) in the 8-week group and by 0·79 units (0·69-0·88; approximately 370 mL) in the 10-week group (p<0·0001 for both). In women, compared with the 16-week group, it increased by 0·84 units (95% CI 0·76-0·91; approximately 395 mL) in the 12-week group and by 0·46 units (0·39-0·53; approximately 215 mL) in the 14-week group (p<0·0001 for both). No significant differences were observed in quality of life, physical activity, or cognitive function across randomised groups. However, more frequent donation resulted in more donation-related symptoms (eg, tiredness, breathlessness, feeling faint, dizziness, and restless legs, especially among men [for all listed symptoms]), lower mean haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations, and more deferrals for low haemoglobin (p<0·0001 for each) than those observed in the standard frequency groups.

Interpretation

Over 2 years, more frequent donation than is standard practice in the UK collected substantially more blood without having a major effect on donors' quality of life, physical activity, or cognitive function, but resulted in more donation-related symptoms, deferrals, and iron deficiency.

Funding

NHS Blood and Transplant, National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, and British Heart Foundation.

SUBMITTER: Di Angelantonio E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5714430 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficiency and safety of varying the frequency of whole blood donation (INTERVAL): a randomised trial of 45 000 donors.

Di Angelantonio Emanuele E Thompson Simon G SG Kaptoge Stephen S Moore Carmel C Walker Matthew M Armitage Jane J Ouwehand Willem H WH Roberts David J DJ Danesh John J

Lancet (London, England) 20170921 10110

<h4>Background</h4>Limits on the frequency of whole blood donation exist primarily to safeguard donor health. However, there is substantial variation across blood services in the maximum frequency of donations allowed. We compared standard practice in the UK with shorter inter-donation intervals used in other countries.<h4>Methods</h4>In this parallel group, pragmatic, randomised trial, we recruited whole blood donors aged 18 years or older from 25 centres across England, UK. By use of a compute ...[more]

PMID: 28941948

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe INTERVAL trial showed that, over a 2-year period, inter-donation intervals for whole blood donation can be safely reduced to meet blood shortages. We extended the INTERVAL trial for a further 2 years to evaluate the longer-term risks and benefits of varying inter-donation intervals, and to compare routine versus more intensive reminders to help donors keep appointments.MethodsThe INTERVAL trial was a parallel group, pragmatic, randomised trial that recruited blood donors aged 18 years or older from 25 static donor centres of NHS Blood and Transplant across England, UK. Here we report on the prespecified analyses after 4 years of follow-up. Participants were whole blood donors who agreed to continue trial participation on their originally allocated inter-donation intervals (men: 12, 10, and 8 weeks; women: 16, 14, and 12 weeks). They were further block-randomised (1:1) to routine versus more intensive reminders using computer-generated random sequences. The prespecified primary outcome was units of blood collected per year analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes related to safety were quality of life, self-reported symptoms potentially related to donation, haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations, and deferrals because of low haemoglobin and other factors. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN24760606, and has completed.FindingsBetween Oct 19, 2014, and May 3, 2016, 20 757 of the 38 035 invited blood donors (10 843 [58%] men, 9914 [51%] women) participated in the extension study. 10 378 (50%) were randomly assigned to routine reminders and 10 379 (50%) were randomly assigned to more intensive reminders. Median follow-up was 1·1 years (IQR 0·7-1·3). Compared with routine reminders, more intensive reminders increased blood collection by a mean of 0·11 units per year (95% CI 0·04-0·17; p=0·0003) in men and 0·06 units per year (0·01-0·11; p=0·0094) in women. During the extension study, each week shorter inter-donation interval increased blood collection by a mean of 0·23 units per year (0·21-0·25) in men and 0·14 units per year (0·12-0·15) in women (both p<0·0001). More frequent donation resulted in more deferrals for low haemoglobin (odds ratio per week shorter inter-donation interval 1·19 [95% CI 1·15-1·22] in men and 1·10 [1·06-1·14] in women), and lower mean haemoglobin (difference per week shorter inter-donation interval -0·84 g/L [95% CI -0·99 to -0·70] in men and -0·45 g/L [-0·59 to -0·31] in women) and ferritin concentrations (percentage difference per week shorter inter-donation interval -6·5% [95% CI -7·6 to -5·5] in men and -5·3% [-6·5 to -4·2] in women; all p<0·0001). No differences were observed in quality of life, serious adverse events, or self-reported symptoms (p>0.0001 for tests of linear trend by inter-donation intervals) other than a higher reported frequency of doctor-diagnosed low iron concentrations and prescription of iron supplements in men (p<0·0001).InterpretationDuring a period of up to 4 years, shorter inter-donation intervals and more intensive reminders resulted in more blood being collected without a detectable effect on donors' mental and physical wellbeing. However, donors had decreased haemoglobin concentrations and more self-reported symptoms compared with the initial 2 years of the trial. Our findings suggest that blood collection services could safely use shorter donation intervals and more intensive reminders to meet shortages, for donors who maintain adequate haemoglobin concentrations and iron stores.FundingNHS Blood and Transplant, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, and British Heart Foundation.

Project description:ImportanceBlood donation is critical for health care systems, but donor retention remains challenging. Understanding donors' preferences can inform incentive design and improve retention rates.ObjectiveTo identify donor preferences for incentive attributes and their relative importance in promoting blood donation among Chinese donors in Shandong.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study fielded a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with a dual response design among blood donors, analyzing the responses under forced and unforced choice settings. The study took place from January 1 to April 30, 2022, in 3 cities (Yantai, Jinan, and Heze) representing diverse socioeconomic strata in Shandong, China. Eligible participants were blood donors aged 18 to 60 years who had donated within the preceding 12 months. Participants were recruited using convenience sampling. Data were analyzed from May to June 2022.ExposureRespondents were presented with different blood donation incentive profiles, varying in health examination, blood recipient, honor recognition, travel time, and gift value.Main outcome and measureRespondent preferences for nonmonetary incentive attributes, attribute relative importance, willingness-to-discard values for attribute improvement, and estimated uptake of new incentive profiles.ResultsA total of 650 donors were invited, of which 477 were included for analysis. The respondents were predominately male (308 respondents [64.6%]), aged 18 to 34 years (291 respondents [61.0%]), and had undergraduate degrees or higher (286 respondents [59.9%]). Among the 477 valid respondents, the mean (SD) age was 31.9 (11.2) years. Respondents preferred comprehensive health examination, family members as recipients, central government recognition, 30-minute travel time, and a gift valued at 60 Renminbi (RMB). No significant differences were found between the model results of forced and unforced choice setting. Blood recipient was the most important attribute, followed by health examination and gifts, and then honor and travel time. Respondents were willing to discard RMB 32 (95% CI, 18-46) for an improved health examination and RMB 69 (95% CI, 47-92) for changing the recipient from themselves to family members. Scenario analysis estimated 80.3% (SE, 0.024) of donors would endorse the new incentive profile if the recipient was changed from themselves to family members.Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study, blood recipient, health examination, and gift value were perceived more important as nonmonetary incentives than travel time and honor recognition. Tailoring incentives according to these preferences may improve donor retention. Further research could help refine and optimize incentive schemes for blood donation promotion.

Project description:ImportanceLiving kidney donors may have an increased risk of fractures due to reductions in kidney mass, lower concentrations of serum 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, and secondary increases in serum parathyroid hormone.ObjectiveTo compare the overall and site-specific risk of fractures among living kidney donors with strictly matched controls from the general population who would have been eligible to donate a kidney but did not do so.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study was conducted between December 1, 2021, and July 31, 2023. A total of 5065 living kidney donors from 3 large transplant centers in Minnesota were invited to complete a survey about their bone health and history of fractures, and 16 156 population-based nondonor controls without a history of comorbidities that would have precluded kidney donation were identified from the Rochester Epidemiology Project and completed the same survey. A total of 2132 living kidney donors and 2014 nondonor controls responded to the survey. Statistical analyses were performed from May to August 2023.ExposureLiving kidney donation.Main outcomes and measuresThe rates of overall and site-specific fractures were compared between living kidney donors and controls using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs).ResultsAt the time of survey, the 2132 living kidney donors had a mean (SD) age of 67.1 (8.9) years and included 1245 women (58.4%), and the 2014 controls had a mean (SD) age of 68.6 (7.9) years and included 1140 women (56.6%). The mean (SD) time between donation or index date and survey date was 24.2 (10.4) years for donors and 27.6 (10.7) years for controls. The overall rate of fractures among living kidney donors was significantly lower than among controls (SIR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97). However, there were significantly more vertebral fractures among living kidney donors than among controls (SIR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05-1.83).Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study found a reduced rate of overall fractures but an excess of vertebral fractures among living kidney donors compared with controls after a mean follow-up of 25 years. Treatment of excess vertebral fractures with dietary supplements such as vitamin D3 may reduce the numbers of vertebral fractures and patient morbidity.

Project description:Background and objectivesThe broader use of combined expanded criteria donor and donation after circulatory death (ECD/DCD) kidneys may help expand the deceased donor pool. The purpose of our study was to evaluate discard rates of kidneys from ECD/DCD donors and factors associated with discard.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsECD/DCD donors and kidneys were evaluated from January 1, 2000 to March 31, 2011 using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. The kidney donor risk index was calculated for all ECD/DCD kidneys. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine risk factors for discarding both donor kidneys. The Kaplan-Meier product limit method and the log-rank statistic were used to assess the cumulative probability of graft failure for transplants from ECD/DCD donors where the mate kidney was discarded versus both kidneys were used.ResultsThere were 896 ECD/DCD donors comprising 1792 kidneys. Both kidneys were discarded in 44.5% of donors, whereas 51.0% of all available kidneys were discarded. The kidney donor risk index scores were higher among donors of discarded versus transplanted kidneys (median, 1.82; interquartile range, 1.60, 2.07 versus median, 1.67; interquartile range, 1.49, 1.87, respectively; P<0.001); however, the distributions showed considerable overlap. The adjusted odds ratios for discard were higher among donors who were older, diabetic, AB blood type, and hepatitis C positive. The cumulative probabilities of total graft failure at 1, 3, and 5 years were 17.3%, 36.5%, and 55.4% versus 13.8%, 24.7%, and 40.5% among kidneys from donors where only one versus both kidneys were transplanted, respectively (log rank P=0.04).ConclusionsOur study shows a significantly higher discard rate for ECD/DCD kidneys versus prior reports. Some discarded ECD/DCD kidneys may be acceptable for transplantation. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the factors that influence decision making around the use of ECD/DCD kidneys.