Sickle cell trait among blood donors in Dubai: prevalence and processing outcomes

@article{alsuwaidi2026sickle,
  title = {{Sickle cell trait among blood donors in Dubai: prevalence and processing outcomes}},
  author = {Laila Alsuwaidi and Neena G. Panicker and Ajwan Alnajar and Farah Otaki and Farah Otaki and Asma AlNeyadi and Nazik Hamad and Ranjita Sharma and May Raouf and Doaa Elsawy},
  journal = {Frontiers in Medicine},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  doi = {10.3389/fmed.2026.1969578},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2026.1969578},
  note = {CC BY},
}

TY  - JOUR
TI  - Sickle cell trait among blood donors in Dubai: prevalence and processing outcomes
AU  - Laila Alsuwaidi
AU  - Neena G. Panicker
AU  - Ajwan Alnajar
AU  - Farah Otaki
AU  - Farah Otaki
AU  - Asma AlNeyadi
AU  - Nazik Hamad
AU  - Ranjita Sharma
AU  - May Raouf
AU  - Doaa Elsawy
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/11/03
JO  - Frontiers in Medicine
DO  - 10.3389/fmed.2026.1969578
UR  - https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2026.1969578
AB  - IntroductionSickle cell trait (SCT) is often considered clinically benign; however, it has important implications for transfusion safety, particularly in regions with a high prevalence of hemoglobinopathy. This preliminary descriptive study aimed to estimate the prevalence of SCT among blood donors in Dubai and to describe the processing and quality control (QC) outcomes of blood components derived from SCT-positive units.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, 1,000 donor samples were collected at the Dubai Blood Donation Centre (DBDC), Dubai, UAE, from September to November 2023. Samples were screened for HbS using a solubility test, with positive samples confirmed by high-performance liquid chromatography. The quality of SCT-positive blood units was subsequently assessed against predefined institutional processing and QC criteria including residual leukocyte count and post-processing volume.ResultsOf the 1,000 blood donors screened, four were confirmed to have SCT, corresponding to a prevalence of 0.4% (two-sided 95% confidence interval, 0.11%–1.02%). HbS fractions ranged from 33.2% to 40.2%. Post-processing volume was compared between SCT-positive units and SCT-negative units. The median post-processing volume was 239.5 mL (IQR: 197.3–300.0 mL) for SCT-positive units and 299 mL (IQR: 281–314 mL) for SCT-negative units, with no statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.198). Quality control analysis showed that three of the four SCT-positive units did not meet the DBDC predefined quality requirements and were consequently discarded, while one unit met all the criteria and was released for inclusion in the blood inventory.ConclusionsSCT was observed at a low prevalence among blood donors in Dubai. Approximately two-thirds of the donors were Indian nationals, and most SCT-positive donors were unaware of their carrier status. Although post-processing volume did not differ significantly between SCT-positive and SCT-negative units, the small number of SCT-positive donations limits interpretation. The QC outcomes highlight the need for larger, prospective multicenter studies incorporating SCT-negative comparator units to evaluate the impact of SCT on blood-component quality and to inform evidence-based targeted HbS screening in transfusion settings. Furthermore, identifying donors who were unaware of their SCT status may provide an opportunity for education, counselling and, when appropriate, referral for genetic counselling.
SN  - 2296-858X
ER  -