Risk-based decision making in transfusion medicine

Vox Sanguinis

Volumn 113, Issue 8, 2018, Pages 737-749

  Leach Bennett, Judie ^a   Devine, Dana V ^a,b  

^a CANADIAN BLOOD SERVICES   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

blood safety; risk based decision making

Indexed keywords

BLOOD SAFETY; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; REVIEW; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BASED DECISION MAKING; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK REDUCTION; STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT; TRANSFUSION MEDICINE; ECONOMICS; PROCEDURES; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; STANDARDS;

BLOOD SAFETY; CLINICAL DECISION-MAKING; HUMANS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RISK MANAGEMENT; TRANSFUSION MEDICINE;

EID: 85053510347     PISSN: 00429007     EISSN: 14230410     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/vox.12708     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Dreyer M, Ortwin R, Ely A, et al.: A General Framework for the Precautionary and Inclusive Governance of Food Safety. Accounting for risks, uncertainties and ambiguities in the assessment and management of food safety threats. 2007.
2. Bounds G: Challenges to Designing Regulatory Policy Frameworks to Manage Risks; Risk and Regulatory Policy: improving the Governance of Risk. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2010
3. Black J: Risk-based Regulation Choices, Practices and Lessons Being Learnt; Risk and Regulatory Policy. Improving the Governance of Risk, OECD Publishing, 2010
4. Rothstein H, Borraz O, Huber M: Risk and the limits of governance: exploring varied patterns of risk-based governance across Europe. Regul Govern 2013; 7:215–235
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Guidance for Industry: Oversight of Clinical Investigations — A Risk-Based Approach to Monitoring. 2013. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM269919.pdf [Last accessed 01 August 2017]
6. Food and Drug Administration: Pharmaceutical cGMPS for the 21st Century — A Risk-Based Approach: Second Progress Report and Implementation Plan. 2004. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/Manufacturing/QuestionsandAnswersonCurrentGoodManufacturingPracticescGMPforDrugs/ucm137175.htm [Last accessed 01 August 2017]
7. Government of Canada: Consulting Canadians on the regulation of self-care products in Canada. 2016. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consultation-regulation-self-care-products/consulting-canadians-regulation-self-care-products-canada.html [Last accessed 01 August 2017]
8. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing: The TGA regulatory framework. 2012
9. Campillo-Artero C: A full-fledged overhaul is needed for a risk and value-based regulation of medical devices in Europe. Health Policy 2013; 113:38–44
10. Evans SR, Pennello G, Pantoja-Galicia N, et al.: Benefit-risk evaluation for diagnostics: a framework (BED-FRAME). Clin Infect Dis 2016; 63:812–817
11. Deloitte: A Framework for Comprehensive Assessment of Medical Technologies: defining Value in the New Health Care Ecosystem. Washington, DC: Advanced Medical Technology Association. 2017
12. Beaussier A-L, Demeritt D, Griffiths A, et al.: Accounting for failure: risk-based regulation and the problems of ensuring healthcare quality in the NHS. Health Risk Soc 2016; 18:205–224
13. Lloyd-Bostock SM, Hutter BM: Reforming regulation of the medical profession: the risks of risk-based approaches. Health Risk Soc 2008; 10:69–83
14. Fischhoff B: The realities of risk-cost-benefit analysis. Science 2015; 350: aaa6516
15. Stein J, Besley J, Brook C, et al.: Risk-based decision-making for blood safety: preliminary report of a consensus conference. Vox Sang 2011; 101:277–281
16. Menitove JE, Bennett JL, Sher G: Lessons learned from Trypanosoma cruzi test implementation. Transfusion 2012; 52:1849–1851
17. Leach Bennett J, Blajchman MA, Delage G, et al.: Proceedings of a consensus conference: risk-Based Decision Making for Blood Safety. Transfus Med Rev 2011; 25:267–292
18. Menitove JE, Leach Bennett J, Tomasulo P, et al.: How safe is safe enough, who decides and how? From a zero-risk paradigm to risk-based decision making. Transfusion 2014; 54:753–757
19. Standardization IOf: ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management –Principles and guidelines. 2009. https://www.iso.org/standard/43170.html[Last accessed 01 August 2017]
20. Watkins NA, Dobra S, Bennett P, et al.: The management of blood safety in the presence of uncertain risk: a United kingdom perspective. Transfus Med Rev 2012; 26:238–251
21. Alliance of Blood Operators: Risk-Based Decision-Making Framework for Blood Safety. 2015. https://www.allianceofbloodoperators.org/abo-resources/risk-based-decision-making.aspx [Last accessed 13 April 2018]
22. Wilson K, Atkinson KM, Fergusson DA, et al.: Problems with precaution: the transfusion medicine experience. J Risk Res 2018; 2017:1–13
23. Goklany IM: From precautionary principle to risk-risk analysis. Nat Biotechnol 2002; 20:1075
24. Kramer K, Zaaijer HL, Verweij MF: The precautionary principle and the tolerability of blood transfusion risks. Am J Bioeth 2017; 17:32–43
25. Custer B, Janssen MP: Health economics and outcomes methods in risk-based decision-making for blood safety. Transfusion 2015; 55:2039–2047
26. Wilson K, Ricketts MN: The success of precaution? Managing the risk of transfusion transmission of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Transfusion 2004; 44:1475–1478
27. Wilson K, Wilson M, Hébert PC, et al.: The application of the precautionary principle to the blood system: the Canadian blood system's vCJD donor deferral policy. Transfus Med Rev 2003; 17:89–94
28. Wilson K, Atkinson K, Keelan J: The use of preliminary scientific evidence in public health: a case study of XMRV. PLoS Med 2014; 11:e1001623
29. Weir E, Schabas R, Wilson K, et al.: A Canadian framework for applying the precautionary principle to public health issues. Can J Public Health 2010; 101:396–398
30. Wilson K: A framework for applying the precautionary principle to transfusion safety. Transfus Med Rev 2011; 25:177–183
31. Wilson K, Atkinson K: Toward neo-precaution: a new approach to applying the precautionary principle to public health. Amer J Bioethics 2017; 17:44–46
32. O'Brien SF, Zou S, Laperche S, et al.: Surveillance of transfusion-transmissible infections comparison of systems in five developed countries. Transfus Med Rev 2012; 26:38–57
33. Strong DM, AuBuchon J, Whitaker B, et al.: Biovigilance initiatives. ISBT Sci Ser 2008; 3:77–84
34. Goldman M, Land K, Robillard P, et al.: Development of standard definitions for surveillance of complications related to blood donation. Vox Sang 2016; 110:185–188
35. International Haemovigilance Network: International Haemovigilance Network's (IHN) international database. http://www.ihn-org.com/haemovigilance-databases/istare-2/ [Last accessed 01-August 2017]
36. Scandinavian Donations and Transfusions Database. 2004. http://www.scandat.se/ [Last accessed 01-August 2017].
37. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: A European network for sharing data on the geographic distribution of arthropod vectors, transmitting human and animal disease agents. 2014. https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/about-us/partnerships-and-networks/disease-and-laboratory-networks/vector-net [Last accessed 01 August 2017]
38. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study-III. https://reds-iii.rti.org/ [Last accessed 01 August 2017]
39. Reesink HW, Engelfriet CP, Hyland CA: Biobanks of blood from donors and recipients of blood products. Vox Sang 2008; 94:242–260
40. Fischhoff B: Communicating Risk and Benefits: an Evidence-Based User's Guide. Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration; 2011
41. International Association for Public Participation: P2 Practitioner Tools. www.iap2.org [Last accessed 01 August 2017]
42. Epstein J, Ganz PR, Seitz R: A shared regulatory perspective on deferral from blood donation of men who have sex with men (MSM). Vox Sang 2014; 107:416–419
43. Goldman M, Lapierre D, Lemay L, et al.: Donor criteria for men who have sex with men: a Canadian perspective. Transfusion 2014; 54:1887–1892
44. Goldman M, Shih AW-Y, O'Brien SF, et al.: Donor deferral policies for men who have sex with men: past, present and future. Vox Sang 2018; 113:95–103
45. Domanović D: Assessing the risk of transfusion-transmitted emerging infections. ISBT Sci Ser 2016; 11:68–75
46. Williamson LM, Devine DV: Challenges in the management of the blood supply. Lancet 2013; 381:1866–1875
47. Skinner MW, Hedlund Hoppe PA, Grabowski HG, et al.: Risk-based decision making and ethical considerations in donor compensation for plasma-derived medicinal products. Transfusion 2016; 56:2889–2894
48. Standardization IOf: ISO 31010:2009 - Risk Management –Risk assessment techniques. 2009. https://www.iso.org/standard/51073.html [Last accessed 01 August 2017]
49. Gallagher LM, Ganz PR, Yang H, et al.: Advancing risk assessment for emerging infectious diseases for blood and blood products: proceedings of a public workshop. Transfusion 2013; 53:455–463
50. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: “European Up-Front Risk Assessment Tool”. http://eufrattool.ecdc.europa.eu/ [Last accessed 01-August 2017]
51. Oei W, Kretzschmar ME, Zaaijer HL, et al.: Estimating the transfusion transmission risk of Q fever. Transfusion 2014; 54:1705–1711
52. AABB: Emerging Infectious Disease Agents and their Potential Threat to Transfusion Safety. 2009. http://www.aabb.org/tm/eid/Pages/default.aspx [Last accessed 01 August 2017]
53. Stramer SL, Dodd RY: Subgroup AT-TDEID: transfusion-transmitted emerging infectious diseases: 30 years of challenges and progress. Transfusion 2013; 53:2375–2383
54. Glynn SA, Busch MP, Dodd RY, et al.: Emerging infectious agents and the nation's blood supply: responding to potential threats in the 21st century. Transfusion 2013; 53:438–454
55. Custer B: Risk modelling in blood safety – review of methods, strengths and limitations. ISBT Sci Ser 2010; 5:294–299
56. Kleinman S, Cameron C, Custer B, et al.: Modeling the risk of an emerging pathogen entering the Canadian blood supply. Transfusion 2010; 50:2592–2606
57. Germain M, Delage G, O'Brien SF, et al.: Mitigation of the threat posed to transfusion by donors traveling to Zika-affected areas: a Canadian risk-based approach. Transfusion 2017; 57:2463–2468
58. Custer B, Hoch JS: Cost-effectiveness analysis: what it really means for transfusion medicine decision making. Transfus Med Rev 2009; 23:1–12
59. Kacker S, Frick KD, Tobian AAR: Data and interpretation: economic evaluations in transfusion medicine, Part 4. Transfusion 2013; 53:2130–2133
60. Janssen MP, van Hulst M, Custer B, et al.: An assessment of differences in costs and health benefits of serology and NAT screening of donations for blood transfusion in different Western countries. Vox Sang 2017; 112:518–525
61. Ellingson KD, Sapiano MRP, Haass KA, et al.: Cost projections for implementation of safety interventions to prevent transfusion-transmitted Zika virus infection in the United States. Transfusion 2017; 57:1625–1633
62. McCullough J, Goldfinger D, Gorlin J, et al.: Cost implications of implementation of pathogen-inactivated platelets. Transfusion 2015; 55:2312–2320
63. ISBT Transfusion-Transmitted Infections Diseases Working Party: Cost Utility Tool. 2017. https://interactive.basecase.com/s/app?id=14143&key=KfzkHJWbGXtWW7 [Last accessed 01 August 2017]
64. Kramer K, Verweij MF, Zaaijer HL: An inventory of concerns behind blood safety policies in five Western countries. Transfusion 2015; 55:2816–2825
65. Guindo LA, Wagner M, Baltussen R, et al.: From efficacy to equity: literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2012; 10:9
66. Kramer K, Verweij MF, Zaaijer HL: Are there ethical differences between stopping and not starting blood safety measures? Vox Sang 2017; 112:417–424
67. Bennett JL: Making good policy decisions: a discipline we cannot afford to ignore. Transfusion 2015; 55:2775–2777
68. Vanem E: Ethics and fundamental principles of risk acceptance criteria. Saf Sci 2012; 50:958–967
69. McCullough J, Anderson D, Brookie D, et al.: Consensus conference on vCJD screening of blood donors: report of the panel. Transfusion 2004; 44:675–683
70. Kleinman S, Caulfield T, Chan P, et al.: Toward an understanding of transfusion-related acute lung injury: statement of a consensus panel. Transfusion 2004; 44:1774–1789
71. King SM, AuBuchon J, Barrowman N, et al.: Consensus statement from the consensus conference on blood-borne human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis: optimizing the donor-selection process. Vox Sang 2002; 83:188–193
72. Klein HG, Anderson D, Bernardi MJ, et al.: Pathogen inactivation: making decisions about new technologies. Report of a consensus conference. Transfusion 2007; 47:2338–2347
73. Menitove JE: What is it all about? Transfusion 2017; 57:1585–1587
74. Styles CE, Seed CR, Hoad VC, Gaudieri S, Keller AJ: Reconsideration of blood donation testing strategy for human T-cell lymphotropic virus in Australia. Vox Sang 2017; 112:723–732
75. Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood Tissues and Organs: Donor Selection Criteria Report. 2017. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/631626/SaBTO_donor_selection_criteria_report.pdf [Last accessed 13 April 2018]
76. Ward S, Stramer S, Szczepiorkowski ZM, et al.: Assessing the risk of Babesia to the US blood supply using a Risk-Based Decision-Making Approach (RBDM). Report of AABB's Ad Hoc Babesia Policy Working Group. Transfusion 2018. In press.
77. Shaz B: Risk-based decision making: a good start to aiding US blood policy decisions?. Transfusion 2018. In press.