Interventions to reduce vasovagal reactions in blood donors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Transfusion Medicine (Oxford, England). 2016;26((1)):15-33.
Vasovagal reactions (VVRs) in blood donors have significant implications for the welfare of donors, donor retention and the management of donor sessions. We present a systematic review of interventions designed to prevent or reduce VVRs in blood donors. Electronic databases were searched for eligible randomised trials to March 2015. Data on study design and outcomes were extracted and pooled using random effects meta-analyses. Sixteen trials met the inclusion criteria: five trials (12 042 participants) of pre-donation water, eight trials (3500 participants) of applied muscle tension (AMT) and one trial each of AMT combined with water, caffeine, audio-visual distraction and/or social support. In donors receiving pre-donation water, the relative risk (RR) compared with controls for VVRs was 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.89, P < 0.0001] and the mean difference (MD) in severity of VVRs measured with the Blood Donation Reactions Inventory (BDRI) score was -0.32 (95% CI -0.51 to -0.12, P < 0.0001). Excluding trials with a high risk of selection bias, the RR for VVRs was 0.70 (95% CI 0.45-1.11, P = 0.13). In donors who received AMT, there was no difference in the risk of chair recline in response to donor distress from controls (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53-1.10, P = 0.15), although the MD in BDRI score was -0.07 (95% CI -0.11 to -0.03, P = 0.0005). There was insufficient data to perform meta-analysis for other interventions. Current evidence on interventions to prevent or reduce VVRs in blood donors is indeed limited and does not provide strong support for the administration of pre-donation water or AMT during donation. Further large trials are required to reliably evaluate the effect of these and other interventions in the prevention of VVRs.
Recruitment and representativeness of blood donors in the INTERVAL randomised trial assessing varying inter-donation intervals
BACKGROUND The interpretation of trial results can be helped by understanding how generalisable they are to the target population for which inferences are intended. INTERVAL, a large pragmatic randomised trial of blood donors in England, is assessing the effectiveness and safety of reducing inter-donation intervals. The trial recruited mainly from the blood service's static centres, which collect only about 10 % of whole-blood donations. Hence, the extent to which the trial's participants are representative of the general blood donor population is uncertain. We compare these groups in detail. METHODS We present the CONSORT flowchart from participant invitation to randomisation in INTERVAL. We compare the characteristics of those eligible and consenting to participate in INTERVAL with the general donor population, using the national blood supply 'PULSE' database for the period of recruitment. We compare the characteristics of specific groups of trial participants recruited from different sources, as well as those who were randomised versus those not randomised. RESULTS From a total of 540,459 invitations, 48,725 donors were eligible and consented to participate in INTERVAL. The proportion of such donors varied from 1-22 % depending on the source of recruitment. The characteristics of those consenting were similar to those of the general population of 1.3 million donors in terms of ethnicity, blood group distribution and recent deferral rates from blood donation due to low haemoglobin. However, INTERVAL participants included more men (50 % versus 44 %), were slightly older (mean age 43.1 versus 42.3 years), included fewer new donors (3 % versus 22 %) and had given more donations over the previous 2 years (mean 3.3 versus 2.2) than the general donor population. Of the consenting participants, 45,263 (93 %) donors were randomised. Compared to those not randomised, the randomised donors showed qualitatively similar differences to those described above. CONCLUSIONS There was broad similarity of participants in INTERVAL with the general blood donor population of England, notwithstanding some differences in age, sex and donation history. Any heterogeneity of the trial's results according to these characteristics will need to be studied to ensure its generalisability to the general donor population. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24760606 . Registered on 25 January 2012.
The INTERVAL trial to determine whether intervals between blood donations can be safely and acceptably decreased to optimise blood supply: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
BACKGROUND Ageing populations may demand more blood transfusions, but the blood supply could be limited by difficulties in attracting and retaining a decreasing pool of younger donors. One approach to increase blood supply is to collect blood more frequently from existing donors. If more donations could be safely collected in this manner at marginal cost, then it would be of considerable benefit to blood services. National Health Service (NHS) Blood and Transplant in England currently allows men to donate up to every 12 weeks and women to donate up to every 16 weeks. In contrast, some other European countries allow donations as frequently as every 8 weeks for men and every 10 weeks for women. The primary aim of the INTERVAL trial is to determine whether donation intervals can be safely and acceptably decreased to optimise blood supply whilst maintaining the health of donors. METHODS/DESIGN INTERVAL is a randomised trial of whole blood donors enrolled from all 25 static centres of NHS Blood and Transplant. Recruitment of about 50,000 male and female donors started in June 2012 and was completed in June 2014. Men have been randomly assigned to standard 12-week versus 10-week versus 8-week inter-donation intervals, while women have been assigned to standard 16-week versus 14-week versus 12-week inter-donation intervals. Sex-specific comparisons will be made by intention-to-treat analysis of outcomes assessed after two years of intervention. The primary outcome is the number of blood donations made. A key secondary outcome is donor quality of life, assessed using the Short Form Health Survey. Additional secondary endpoints include the number of 'deferrals' due to low haemoglobin (and other factors), iron status, cognitive function, physical activity, and donor attitudes. A comprehensive health economic analysis will be undertaken. DISCUSSION The INTERVAL trial should yield novel information about the effect of inter-donation intervals on blood supply, acceptability, and donors' physical and mental well-being. The study will generate scientific evidence to help formulate blood collection policies in England and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24760606, 25 January 2012.
Treatment for IgG and IgA paraproteinaemic neuropathy
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2007;((1):):CD005376.
Anti-D (WinRho SD) treatment of children with chronic autoimmune thrombocytopenic purpura stimulates transient cytokine/chemokine production
American Journal of Hematology. 2002;69((3):):225-7.
Intravenous anti-D is often used in the treatment of autoimmune thrombocytopenic purpura (AITP), but little is known about its mechanisms of action. To investigate anti-D's potential in vivo mechanism(s) of action, a small group (N = 7) of children with chronic AITP was studied. The children initially received either 25 or 50 microg/kg of WinRho-SD in a four-cycle cross-over trial, and peripheral blood samples from the first and third cycles were assessed for cytokine levels at pre-treatment, 3 hr, 1 day, and 8 days post-treatment. Results showed that platelet counts significantly increased in all the children by day 8 post-treatment. Analysis of serum by ELISA showed that there was a significant but transient rise in both pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine/chemokine levels (e.g., IL1RA, IL6, GM-CSF, MCP-1 alpha, TNF-alpha and MCP-1) by 3 hr post-treatment in both cycles which returned to baseline levels by 8 days post-treatment. These results suggest that anti-D administration may initially activate the RES in the form of cytokine/chemokine secretion, which is subsequently followed by an increase in platelet counts. It is possible that the induced cytokine/chemokine storm may have an effect on several physiological processes such as those mediating either adverse effects or potentially RES phagocytic activity.