Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31383583›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Haematology2019

Longer-term efficiency and safety of increasing the frequency of whole blood donation (INTERVAL): extension study of a randomised trial of 20 757 blood donors.

Stephen Kaptoge, Emanuele Di Angelantonio, Carmel Moore, Matthew Walker, Jane Armitage, Willem H Ouwehand, David J Roberts, John Danesh, Simon G Thompson, INTERVAL Trial Group

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Haematology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephen KaptogeDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Donor Health and Genomics, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; British Heart Foundation Cambridge Centre for Research Excellence, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Emanuele Di AngelantonioDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Donor Health and Genomics, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK; NHS Blood and Transplant, Cambridge, UK; Oxford, UK; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; British Heart Foundation Cambridge Centre for Research Excellence, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Carmel MooreDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Donor Health and Genomics, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; British Heart Foundation Cambridge Centre for Research Excellence, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Matthew WalkerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Donor Health and Genomics, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; British Heart Foundation Cambridge Centre for Research Excellence, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Jane ArmitageClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, and MRC Population Health Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Willem H OuwehandDepartment of Haematology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK; NHS Blood and Transplant, Cambridge, UK; Oxford, UK; British Heart Foundation Cambridge Centre for Research Excellence, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
David J RobertsNIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Donor Health and Genomics, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre-Haematology Theme and Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK; NHS Blood and Transplant, Cambridge, UK; Oxford, UK.
John DaneshDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Donor Health and Genomics, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; British Heart Foundation Cambridge Centre for Research Excellence, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: jd292@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Simon G ThompsonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Donor Health and Genomics, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; British Heart Foundation Cambridge Centre for Research Excellence, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
INTERVAL Trial Group
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/13/13/30194British Heart Foundation RG/18/13/33946British Heart Foundation SP/08/010/25939British Heart Foundation SP/09/002British Heart Foundation SP/14/3/31114Medical Research Council MC_U137686853Medical Research Council MC_UU_12026/5
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe INTERVAL trial showed that, over a 2-year period, inter-donation intervals for whole blood donation can be safely reduced to meet blood shortages. We extended the INTERVAL trial for a further 2 years to evaluate the longer-term risks and benefits of varying inter-donation intervals, and to compare routine versus more intensive reminders to help donors keep appointments.

methodsThe INTERVAL trial was a parallel group, pragmatic, randomised trial that recruited blood donors aged 18 years or older from 25 static donor centres of NHS Blood and Transplant across England, UK. Here we report on the prespecified analyses after 4 years of follow-up. Participants were whole blood donors who agreed to continue trial participation on their originally allocated inter-donation intervals (men: 12, 10, and 8 weeks; women: 16, 14, and 12 weeks). They were further block-randomised (1:1) to routine versus more intensive reminders using computer-generated random sequences. The prespecified primary outcome was units of blood collected per year analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes related to safety were quality of life, self-reported symptoms potentially related to donation, haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations, and deferrals because of low haemoglobin and other factors. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN24760606, and has completed.

findingsBetween Oct 19, 2014, and May 3, 2016, 20 757 of the 38 035 invited blood donors (10 843 [58%] men, 9914 [51%] women) participated in the extension study. 10 378 (50%) were randomly assigned to routine reminders and 10 379 (50%) were randomly assigned to more intensive reminders. Median follow-up was 1·1 years (IQR 0·7-1·3). Compared with routine reminders, more intensive reminders increased blood collection by a mean of 0·11 units per year (95% CI 0·04-0·17; p=0·0003) in men and 0·06 units per year (0·01-0·11; p=0·0094) in women. During the extension study, each week shorter inter-donation interval increased blood collection by a mean of 0·23 units per year (0·21-0·25) in men and 0·14 units per year (0·12-0·15) in women (both p<0·0001). More frequent donation resulted in more deferrals for low haemoglobin (odds ratio per week shorter inter-donation interval 1·19 [95% CI 1·15-1·22] in men and 1·10 [1·06-1·14] in women), and lower mean haemoglobin (difference per week shorter inter-donation interval -0·84 g/L [95% CI -0·99 to -0·70] in men and -0·45 g/L [-0·59 to -0·31] in women) and ferritin concentrations (percentage difference per week shorter inter-donation interval -6·5% [95% CI -7·6 to -5·5] in men and -5·3% [-6·5 to -4·2] in women; all p<0·0001). No differences were observed in quality of life, serious adverse events, or self-reported symptoms (p>0.0001 for tests of linear trend by inter-donation intervals) other than a higher reported frequency of doctor-diagnosed low iron concentrations and prescription of iron supplements in men (p<0·0001).

interpretationDuring a period of up to 4 years, shorter inter-donation intervals and more intensive reminders resulted in more blood being collected without a detectable effect on donors' mental and physical wellbeing. However, donors had decreased haemoglobin concentrations and more self-reported symptoms compared with the initial 2 years of the trial. Our findings suggest that blood collection services could safely use shorter donation intervals and more intensive reminders to meet shortages, for donors who maintain adequate haemoglobin concentrations and iron stores.

fundingNHS Blood and Transplant, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, and British Heart Foundation.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnemia, Iron-DeficiencyBlood DonorsEfficiencyFemaleFerritinsHemoglobinsHumansIronMalePatient SafetyQuality of LifeRisk AssessmentSex FactorsTime FactorsFerritinsHemoglobinsIron

Identifiers

PMID31383583
PMCPMC7029279
OpenAlexW2966030324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.