TY - JOUR
T1 - Mapping anticipated advantages and disadvantages of implementation of extensive donor genotyping
T2 - A focus group approach
AU - Luken, Jessie S.
AU - Ritsema, Sebastien P.
AU - van der Wal, Merel M.
AU - van der Schoot, C. Ellen
AU - Rouwette, Etiënne A. J. A.
AU - de Haas, Masja
AU - Janssen, Mart P.
N1 - Funding Information: This work was supported by Stichting Sanquin Bloedvoorziening (grant PPOC19‐01/L2398). Publisher Copyright: © 2022 British Blood Transfusion Society.
PY - 2022/10
Y1 - 2022/10
N2 - Background and objectives: Current genotyping techniques allow typing of all relevant red cell, human leukocyte and platelet antigens in a single analysis. Even genetic markers related to donor health can be added. Implementation of this technology will affect various stakeholders within the transfusion chain. This study aims to systematically map the anticipated advantages and disadvantages of a national rollout of blood group genotyping of donors, which will affect the availability of rare donors and the implementation of an extensively typed blood transfusion policy. Materials and methods: Two focus-group sessions were held with a wide representation of stakeholders, including representatives of donor and patient organisations. A dedicated software tool was used to collect the reflections of participants on genotyping for blood group antigens and extensive matching. Additionally, stakeholders and experts discussed various prepared propositions. All information collected was categorised. Results: From 162 statements collected, 59 statements (36%) were labelled as ‘hopes’ and 77 (48%) as ‘fears’. Twenty-six (16%) statements remained unlabelled. The statements were divided in 18 categories under seven main themes: patient health, genotyping, privacy issues and ethical aspects, donor management, inventory management and logistics, hospital and transfusion laboratory and general aspects. The discussion on the propositions was analysed and summarised. Conclusion: Stakeholders believe that a genotyped donor pool can result in a reduction of alloimmunization and higher availability of typed blood products. There are concerns regarding logistics, costs, consent for extended typing, data sharing, privacy issues and donor management. These concerns need to be carefully addressed before further implementation.
AB - Background and objectives: Current genotyping techniques allow typing of all relevant red cell, human leukocyte and platelet antigens in a single analysis. Even genetic markers related to donor health can be added. Implementation of this technology will affect various stakeholders within the transfusion chain. This study aims to systematically map the anticipated advantages and disadvantages of a national rollout of blood group genotyping of donors, which will affect the availability of rare donors and the implementation of an extensively typed blood transfusion policy. Materials and methods: Two focus-group sessions were held with a wide representation of stakeholders, including representatives of donor and patient organisations. A dedicated software tool was used to collect the reflections of participants on genotyping for blood group antigens and extensive matching. Additionally, stakeholders and experts discussed various prepared propositions. All information collected was categorised. Results: From 162 statements collected, 59 statements (36%) were labelled as ‘hopes’ and 77 (48%) as ‘fears’. Twenty-six (16%) statements remained unlabelled. The statements were divided in 18 categories under seven main themes: patient health, genotyping, privacy issues and ethical aspects, donor management, inventory management and logistics, hospital and transfusion laboratory and general aspects. The discussion on the propositions was analysed and summarised. Conclusion: Stakeholders believe that a genotyped donor pool can result in a reduction of alloimmunization and higher availability of typed blood products. There are concerns regarding logistics, costs, consent for extended typing, data sharing, privacy issues and donor management. These concerns need to be carefully addressed before further implementation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85131328892&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/tme.12887
DO - https://doi.org/10.1111/tme.12887
M3 - Article
C2 - 35668008
SN - 0958-7578
VL - 32
SP - 366
EP - 374
JO - Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England)
JF - Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England)
IS - 5
ER -