Search

Background: Men who have sex with men in Brazil are deferred from donation for 1 year since their last sexual contact. Legal proceedings in front of the Brazilian Supreme Court could compel blood collection agencies to discontinue use of sexual orientation questions.Methods: Data from male participants in a completed HIV risk factor case-control study were used to evaluate whether it is possible to differentiate donors at lower and higher risk for HIV using two analytical approaches: latent class and random forest analyses.Results: Male blood donors were divided into three distinct risk profile classes. Class 1 includes donors who are heterosexual (96.4%), are HIV negative (88.7%), have a main partner (99.4%), and practice unprotected sex (77.8%). Class 2 includes donors who are men who have sex with men /bisexuals' (100.0%), are HIV positive (97.4%), and were not aware of their sexual partners' HIV status (80.3%). Class 3 includes donors who are heterosexual (84.1%), practice unprotected vaginal/anal heterosexual sex (66.8% vs. 40.9%), and were both HIV positive and HIV negative (49.5% vs. 50.5%). We also found that asking donors about their partner(s)' HIV serostatus could replace asking about donors' sexual orientation and types of partners with relatively minor shifts in sensitivity (0.76 vs. 0.58), specificity (0.89 vs. 0.94), and positive predictive value (0.85 vs. 0.88).Conclusion: Sexual orientation questions on the donor questionnaire could be replaced without great loss in the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. Social and sexual behaviors of donors and their partners are proxies for HIV risk and can help to develop modified questions that will need controlled trials to be validated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Predonation donor deferral is used to select donors with presumed lower risk for transfused transmitted infections. The contribution to blood safety from this practice has not been reported previously for Brazil.Study Design and Methods: At four large Brazilian blood centers from September 2010 to March 2011, donors who were deferred due to responses on eligibility questions were invited to provide a blood sample to test for HIV, hepatitis C virus, hepatitis B virus, human T-lymphotropic virus, syphilis, and Trypanosoma cruzi and complete an audio computer-assisted structured interview on risk behaviors.Results: Of 299,848 potential donors during the study period, 66,870 were deferred with 10,453 (15.6%) for high-risk behaviors. Of those, 4860 (46.5%) were consecutively approached and 4013 (82.5%) participated. Disclosed risk behaviors by audio computer-assisted structured interview included 4 or more sexual partners in the past 12 months (15.0% of females [F] and 34.5% of males [M]), unprotected sex (62.0% F and 44.0% M), other high-risk sexual exposure (85.0% F and 73.0% M), being a person who injects drugs (3.0% F and 10.0% M), and test-seeking (17.0% F and 22.0% M). Eleven percent of deferred males reported male-to-male sex. Individuals who reported other high-risk sexual exposure, sexual partner risk, or male-to-male sex had the highest frequency of confirmed HIV: 1.2, 0.7, and 0.7%, respectively. Individuals who reported male-to-male sex, sexual partner risk, test seeking, and unprotected sex had the highest frequency of confirmed syphilis: 3.8, 3.3, 2.4, and 2.0%, respectively.Conclusion: Donor deferral deters donation by individuals with risk behaviors and elevated rates of infectious disease markers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study evaluated demographic profiles and prevalence of serologic markers among donors who used confidential unit exclusion (CUE) to assess the effectiveness of CUE and guide public policies regarding the use of CUE for enhancing safety versus jeopardizing the blood supply by dropping CUE.Study Design and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of whole blood donations at a large public blood center in São Paulo from July 2007 through June 2009, compared demographic data, and confirmed serologic results among donors who used and who have never used CUE (CUE never).Results: There were 265,550 whole blood units collected from 181,418 donors from July 2007 through June 2009. A total of 9658 (3.6%) units were discarded, 2973 (1.1%) because CUE was used at the current donation (CUE now) and 6685 (2.5%) because CUE was used in the past (CUE past). The CUE rate was highest among donors with less than 8 years of education (odds ratio [OR], 2.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.51-3.08). CUE now donations were associated with higher positive infectious disease marker rates than CUE never donations (OR, 1.41; CI, 1.13-1.77), whereas CUE past donations were not (OR, 1.04; CI, 0.75-1.45).Conclusion: The CUE process results in a high rate of unit discard. CUE use on an individual donation appears predictive of a high-risk marker-positive donation and, thus, appears to contribute modestly to blood safety. The policy of discarding units from donors who have previously CUE-positive donations does not improve safety and should be discontinued. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]