Search

Additional file 1. Completed PRISMA harms checklist.

International audience; Pathogen reduction (PR) of selected blood components is a technology that has been adopted in practice in various ways. Although they offer great advantages in improving the safety of the blood supply, these technologies have limitations which hinder their broader use, e.g. increased costs. In this context, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), in co-operation with the Italian National Blood Centre, organised an expert consultation meeting to discuss the potential role of pathogen reduction technologies (PRT) as a blood safety intervention during outbreaks of infectious diseases for which (in most cases) laboratory screening of blood donations is not available. The meeting brought together 26 experts and representatives of national competent authorities for blood from thirteen European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA) Member States (MS), Switzerland, the World Health Organization, the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and Health Care of the Council of Europe, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the ECDC. During the meeting, the current use of PRTs in the EU/EEA MS and Switzerland was verified, with particular reference to emerging infectious diseases (see Appendix). In this article, we also present expert discussions and a common view on the potential use of PRT as a part of both preparedness and response to threats posed to blood safety by outbreaks of infectious disease.

Background and Objectives The cost-utility of safety interventions is becoming increasingly important as a driver of implementation decisions. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-utility of different blood screening strategies in various settings, and to analyse the extent and cause of differences in health economic results.Materials and Methods For eight Western countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, The Netherlands, UK and the United States of America), data were collected on donor and recipient populations, blood products, screening tests, and on patient treatment practices and costs. An existing ISBT web-tool model was used to assess the cost-utility of various strategies for HIV, HCV and HBV screening.Results The cost-utility ratio of serology screening for these eight countries ranges between -11 000 and 92 000 US$ per QALY, and for NAT between -12 000 and 113 000 US$ per QALY when compared to no screening. Combined serology and NAT ranges between 600 and 217 000 US$ per QALY. The incremental cost-utility of NAT after implementation of serology screening ranges from 2 231 000 to 15 778 000 US$ per QALY.Conclusion There are substantial differences in costs per QALY between countries for various HIV, HBV and HCV screening strategies. These differences are primarily caused by costs of screening tests and infection rates in the donor population. Within each country, similar cost per QALY results for serology and NAT compared to no screening, coupled with evidence of limited value of serology and NAT together prompts the need for further discussion on the acceptability of parallel testing by serology and NAT.

Patient blood management (PBM), as defined by the WHO, is a patient‐focused, evidence‐based and systematic approach to optimize the management of patient and transfusion of blood products for quality and effective patient care. It is designed to improve patient outcomes through the safe and rational use of blood and blood products and by minimizing unnecessary exposure to blood products. Important elements of PBM are optimizing haemoglobin concentrations without blood transfusion, minimizing blood loss and managing anaemia, especially by use of evidence‐based transfusion guidelines and pharmacological agents. Local PBM initiatives differ substantially. In one region of Denmark, the majority of PBM initiatives over the last 10 years have been based on provider education and enforcement of national guidelines. Evaluation of the effect of these initiatives indicated that education alone can be an effective and durable method of reducing unnecessary transfusions. To improve implementation and knowledge of PBM, benchmarking of experiences between hospitals and countries seems rational, and several initiatives regarding PBM are being undertaken in Europe. Patient Blood Management in Europe (PaBloE) is a working group of the European Blood Alliance. Its objectives are to derive good practices in PBM and to develop ways to implement these practices. Within this group, several surveys have been performed relating to blood product consumption, implementation of PBM, and knowledge of PBM principles and practices among clinicians. These surveys have shown variation in transfusion rates between the participating hospitals, and variable implementation of PBM activities and monitoring of transfusion practice.

BACKGROUND: In 1996, a national lookback study was performed in Denmark identifying 1018 patients exposed to hepatitis C virus (HCV) by transfusion before 1991. The objective of this study was to describe morbidity and mortality during extended follow-up among patients in the Danish HCV lookback cohort alive in 1996. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study of 230 patients exposed to HCV by blood transfusion and alive in 1996 we extracted data from national registers and compared these with a matched group of unexposed transfusion recipients. RESULTS: Among 230 HCV-exposed recipients alive in 1996, 124 (53.9%) had chronic hepatitis C, 43 (18.7%) were not infected, and 63 (27.4%) had incomplete HCV data. In 2009, 121 (52.6%) were still alive a median of 21.8 years after transfusion. The mortality rate among the HCV-exposed recipients followed from 1996 was 4.9 per 100 person-years (PY). The incidence of liver cirrhosis and decompensated cirrhosis was 1.0 per 100 PY and 0.4 per 100 PY, respectively; 16.5% had cirrhosis at death. Among HCV-exposed recipients, no difference in all-cause or liver-related mortality was observed between HCV-infected and HCV-uninfected recipients. Further, there was no difference in mortality between HCV-exposed and -unexposed transfusion recipients (mortality rate ratio [MRR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.17; p = 0.47), but liver-related mortality was significantly higher among HCV-exposed patients (MRR, 10.0; 95% CI, 7.20-17.7; p