Safety and protection of plasma donors: A scoping review and evidence gap map

Abstract

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesAs part of a large‐scale project to safely increase plasma collection in Europe, the current scoping review identifies the existing evidence (gaps) on adverse events (AEs) and other health effects in plasmapheresis donors, as well as factors that may be associated with such events/effects.Materials and MethodsWe searched six databases and three registries. Study characteristics (publication type, language, study design, population, outcomes, associated factors, time of assessment, duration of follow‐up, number and frequency of donations, convalescent plasma [y/n], setting and location) were synthesized narratively and in an interactive evidence gap map (EGM).ResultsNinety‐four research articles and five registrations were identified. Around 90% were observational studies (57 controlled and 33 uncontrolled), and most of them were performed in Europe (55%) or the United States (20%). Factors studied in association with donor health included donor characteristics (e.g., sex, age) (n = 27), cumulative number of donations (n = 21), donation frequency (n = 11), plasma collection device or programme (n = 11), donor status (first time vs. repeat) (n = 10), donation volume per session (n = 8), time in donation programme (n = 3), preventive measures (n = 2) or other (n = 9).ConclusionThe current scoping review provides an accessible tool for researchers and policymakers to identify the available evidence (gaps) concerning plasmapheresis donation safety. Controlled prospective studies with long‐term donor follow‐up are scarce. Furthermore, additional experimental studies comparing the health effects of different donation frequencies are required to inform a safe upper limit for donation frequency.