Katrine Grau1, Senthil K Vasan2, Klaus Rostgaard1, Walter Bialkowski3, Rut Norda4, Henrik Hjalgrim1,5, Gustaf Edgren2,6. 1. Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Blood Research and Medical Sciences Institutes, Blood Center of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 4. Department of Immunology, Genetics, and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 5. Department of Hematology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Hematology Centre, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Citrate anticoagulation during apheresis induces transient alterations in calcium homeostasis. It is unknown whether the repeated, transient alterations in calcium homeostasis experienced by repeated apheresis donors affects bone turnover to increase fracture risk. Our aim was to investigate the risk of osteoporotic and nonosteoporotic fracture among voluntary, frequent apheresis donors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: All apheresis donors were identified from the Scandinavian Donations and Transfusions database (SCANDAT2), which includes information on over 1.6 million blood donors from Sweden and Denmark from the years 1968 and 1981, respectively. Only data from Sweden were used for these analyses. Information on fractures was obtained by linking SCANDAT2 to hospital registers. Poisson regression was used to compute incidence rate ratios of fractures in relation to the cumulative number of apheresis donations, both overall and in fixed time windows. RESULTS: In total, 140,289 apheresis donors (67,970 women and 72,319 men) were identified from the SCANDAT2 database and were followed for up to 23 years. We observed no association between the frequency of apheresis donation and the risk of fracture either in the overall study period or during fixed-length time windows. The incidence rate ratio of fractures in donors who had made 100 or more cumulative apheresis donations was 0.99 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.06) compared with donors who had made from 9 to 24 donations. The results were similar in analyses stratified by sex and restricted to postmenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of an association between repeated apheresis donation and fracture risk indicates that apheresis collection is safe with regard to bone health.
BACKGROUND:Citrate anticoagulation during apheresis induces transient alterations in calcium homeostasis. It is unknown whether the repeated, transient alterations in calcium homeostasis experienced by repeated apheresis donors affects bone turnover to increase fracture risk. Our aim was to investigate the risk of osteoporotic and nonosteoporotic fracture among voluntary, frequent apheresis donors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: All apheresis donors were identified from the Scandinavian Donations and Transfusions database (SCANDAT2), which includes information on over 1.6 million blood donors from Sweden and Denmark from the years 1968 and 1981, respectively. Only data from Sweden were used for these analyses. Information on fractures was obtained by linking SCANDAT2 to hospital registers. Poisson regression was used to compute incidence rate ratios of fractures in relation to the cumulative number of apheresis donations, both overall and in fixed time windows. RESULTS: In total, 140,289 apheresis donors (67,970 women and 72,319 men) were identified from the SCANDAT2 database and were followed for up to 23 years. We observed no association between the frequency of apheresis donation and the risk of fracture either in the overall study period or during fixed-length time windows. The incidence rate ratio of fractures in donors who had made 100 or more cumulative apheresis donations was 0.99 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.06) compared with donors who had made from 9 to 24 donations. The results were similar in analyses stratified by sex and restricted to postmenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of an association between repeated apheresis donation and fracture risk indicates that apheresis collection is safe with regard to bone health.
Authors: Chidi Okafor; David M Ward; Michele H Mokrzycki; Robert Weinstein; Pamela Clark; Rasheed A Balogun Journal: J Clin Apher Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.821
Authors: Gustaf Edgren; Trung Nam Tran; Henrik Hjalgrim; Klaus Rostgaard; Agneta Shanwell; Kjell Titlestad; Agneta Wikman; Rut Norda; Casper Jersild; Louise Wideroff; Gloria Gridley; Johanna Adami; Mads Melbye; Olof Nyrén; Marie Reilly Journal: Transfusion Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Gustaf Edgren; Klaus Rostgaard; Senthil K Vasan; Agneta Wikman; Rut Norda; Ole Birger Pedersen; Christian Erikstrup; Kaspar René Nielsen; Kjell Titlestad; Henrik Ullum; Mads Melbye; Olof Nyrén; Henrik Hjalgrim Journal: Transfusion Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Robert L Jilka; Charles A O'Brien; A Afshan Ali; Paula K Roberson; Robert S Weinstein; Stavros C Manolagas Journal: Bone Date: 2008-10-22 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Jonas F Ludvigsson; Eva Andersson; Anders Ekbom; Maria Feychting; Jeong-Lim Kim; Christina Reuterwall; Mona Heurgren; Petra Otterblad Olausson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Jan Hartmann; Michael J Ragusa; Elmar R Burchardt; Zorayr Manukyan; Mark A Popovsky; Susan F Leitman Journal: Transfusion Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 3.337
Authors: Jingcheng Zhao; Erin Gabriel; Rut Norda; Petter Höglund; Lindsey Baden; Beatrice A Diedrich; Per Marits; Sara L Enoksson; John M Gansner; Richard Kaufman; Paul W Dickman; Gustaf Edgren Journal: Transfusion Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 3.157