Background: TTIs remain a major threat to transfusion safety. This study assessed the association between ABO/Rh blood groups and HBV, HIV, HCV, and syphilis among 4.038 apparently healthy blood donors. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at the Moroccan Blood Agency and its Derivatives in Marrakech. Serological markers were detected using the Architect i2000SR chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (Abbott®, USA). ABO/Rh phenotyping was performed by forward and reverse grouping. Associations were assessed using Pearson’s chi-square test and logistic regression, with adjusted odds ratios. Results: Overall, 885 of 4.038 donors (21.92%) tested positive for at least one TTI marker, for at least one TTI. The highest prevalence of HBV was observed among blood group B donors (9.55%), whereas syphilis was most frequent in group AB (10.76%). HCV prevalence was highest in groups B (3.18%) and AB (3.07%), while HIV prevalence was highest in groups AB (4.61%) and O (4.50%). Regarding the Rh system, HBV, HCV, and HIV prevalence was comparable between Rh-positive and Rh-negative donors (8.94% vs. 8.06%, 2.56% vs. 2.41%, and 4.39% vs. 4.83%, respectively), whereas syphilis was more common among Rh-positive donors (6.71% vs. 4.56%). Compared with blood group O, the odds of HBV reactivity were similar among groups A (p = 0.317), B (p = 0.771), and AB (p = 0.837). Similarly, no significant associations were observed for HCV or HIV across the ABO groups (p > 0.05). For syphilis, donors with blood group AB had higher odds of reactive screening results than those with group O (COR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.07–2.84; p = 0.025); but overall ABO association was not significant (p = 0.088). Multiple reactive serological profiles were mainly observed among O+ donors (9/16), including two triple-reactive profiles involving HBV, syphilis, and HIV. Conclusions: These findings indicated that ABO and Rh blood group systems were not significantly associated with any reactive serological markers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Melloul et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: