Search

Blood donors are a healthy subset of the population, and data collected from testing their donations for infectious disease markers provides opportunities for monitoring epidemiologic characteristics translatable to the general [...]

Background: Transfusion‐transmissible infection (TTI) prevalence among US blood donors has been widely documented. Here we estimate the prevalence of donors presenting with ≥2 TTIs (multiple infections past or present referred to as coinfections) and describe their demographics and associations. Methods: Data from the Transfusion‐Transmissible Infections Monitoring System were compiled for October 2020–September 2023 (3 years). Prevalence per million donations (pmd) was calculated for each TTI coinfection combination with demographic characteristics summarized. The odds of each TTI coinfection combination were estimated using logistic regression. Reactivity by NAT and/or serology (HIV, HBV, and HCV) defined donors as consensus positive (CP) for each infection while serology‐based algorithms defined syphilis CP and the subset with active syphilis infections (ASIs). Results: About 22 million donations were included, with 212 coinfections (9.7 pmd). Around 2% of donations positive for any TTI (n = 10,516) were coinfections. Coinfection prevalence per TTI combination ranged from 0.3 pmd for HIV CP and HCV CP, to 4.3 pmd for HIV CP and syphilis CP. There were high proportions of coinfections from donors who were male, aged 25–54 years, white or black, first time, and residing in the southern US Census Region. The odds of a second TTI occurring in an individual donor with a TTI ranged from 23 (95% CI: 13, 41) times more likely for HBV CP and ASI to 395 (95% CI: 298, 524) times more likely for HIV CP and ASI. Conclusions: Coinfections are relatively uncommon among blood donors in the United States; however, associations exist among HIV, HBV, HCV, and syphilis infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic impacted the US blood supply. We compared blood donor demography and infectious disease prevalence before and during the pandemic using a large multicenter database. Methods: Data were categorized as "Before COVID‐19" (March 2018–February 2020) or "During COVID‐19" (March 2020–February 2022). Donor demographics, donation frequency, and infectious marker prevalence of HIV, HBV, and HCV were compared for the two time periods. The odds of a donor testing positive for these infections among the two time periods were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Our study assessed a total of 26,672,213 donations including 13,430,380 before and 13,241,833 during COVID‐19. There were significantly more donations from donors who were female, aged 40 and older, white, and repeat, during COVID‐19. Donation frequency comparison quantified the increase in donations from donors who were white, female, older, and repeat during the pandemic. The prevalence of HIV and HCV decreased significantly during COVID‐19 compared to before, but not for HBV. For HIV, the adjusted odds of infection during the pandemic did not differ but for HBV, the odds were significantly more likely during the pandemic and were significantly lower for HCV. Discussion: Demographics and infectious disease marker prevalence changed during the COVID‐19 pandemic in the United States. Prevalence of each infection in the donor population will continue to be monitored to determine if changes were specific to the pandemic period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: HIV, HBV, and HCV infections for ~60% of the US blood supply are monitored by TTIMS with syphilis added in 2020. Study Design and Methods: Data were compiled from October 2020 to September 2022. Syphilis prevalence was estimated for allogeneic and directed donors who were consensus positive (CP) and the subset of those with confirmed‐active infections (AI). Prevalence and incidence were stratified by demographics for two consecutive 1‐year periods, starting October 1, 2020 and for both years combined. Incidence was estimated for repeat donors. Associations between syphilis positivity and other infections were evaluated. Results: Among 14.75 million donations, syphilis prevalence was 28.4/100,000 donations and significantly higher during the second year compared to the first year. Overall, syphilis incidence for the two‐year period was 10.8/100,000 person‐years. The adjusted odds of a CP infection were 1.18 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.26) times higher in the second year compared to the first, and for AI, 1.22 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.35) times higher in year 2. Highest rates occurred among males, first‐time, Black, and younger (ages 18–39) donors, and those in the South US Census region. Syphilis CP donors were 64 (95% CI: 46, 89) times more likely to be HIV CP, and AI donors 77 (95% CI: 52, 114) times more likely to be HIV CP than non‐CP donors, when controlling for confounders. Summary/Conclusions: Syphilis prevalence increased over the study period mirroring national trends reported by CDC and is significantly associated with HIV CP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: U.S. blood donors are tested at each donation for human T‐lymphotropic virus (HTLV) antibodies. Depending on donor incidence and other mitigation/removal technologies, a strategy of one‐time selective donor testing should be considered. Methods: Antibody seroprevalence was calculated for HTLV‐confirmed‐positive American Red Cross allogeneic blood donors from 2008 to 2021. Incidence was estimated for seven 2‐year time periods using confirmed‐positive repeat donors having seroconverted in 730 days. Leukoreduction failure rates were obtained from internal data from July 1, 2008–June 30, 2021. Residual risks were calculated using a 51‐day window period. Results: Between 2008 and 2021, >75 million donations (>18 million donors) yielded 1550 HTLV seropositives. HTLV seroprevalence was 2.05 antibody‐positives per 100,000 donations (0.77 HTLV‐1, 1.03 HTLV‐2, 0.24 HTLV‐1/2), and 10.32 per 100,000 among >13.9 million first‐time donors. Seroprevalence differed significantly by virus type, sex, age, race/ethnicity, donor status, and U.S. census region. Over 14 years and 24.8 million person‐years of observation, 57 incident donors were identified (25 HTLV‐1, 23 HTLV‐2, and 9 HTLV‐1/2). Incidence decreased from 0.30 (13 cases) in 2008–2009 to 0.25 (7 cases) in 2020–2021. Female donors accounted for most incident cases (47 vs. 10 males). In the last 2‐year reporting period, the residual risk was 1 per 2.8 million donations and 1 per 3.3 billion donations when coupled with successful leukoreduction (0.085% failure rate). Conclusions: HTLV donation seroprevalence for the years 2008–2021 varied by virus type and donor characteristics. Low HTLV residual risk and use of leukoreduction processes support the conclusion that a selective one‐time donor testing strategy should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated low first‐time donor return rates (DRR) following catastrophic events. Little is known, however, about the influence of demographic factors on the DRR of first‐time donors during the COVID‐19 pandemic, including the unique motivation of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors as compared to non‐CCP donors. Study Design and Methods: Thirteen blood collection organizations submitted deidentified data from first‐time CCP and non‐CCP donors returning for regular (non‐CCP) donations during the pandemic. DRR was calculated as frequencies. Demographic factors associated with returning donors: race/ethnicity, gender, and generation (Gen Z: 19–24, Millennial: 25–40, Gen X: 41–56, and Boomer: ≥57 years old), within the CCP and non‐CCP first‐time cohorts were compared using chi‐square test at p <.05 statistical significance. Results: From March 2020 through December 2021, there were a total of 44,274 first‐time CCP and 980,201 first‐time non‐CCP donors. DRR were 14.6% (range 11.9%–43.3%) and 46.6% (range 10.0%–76.9%) for CCP and non‐CCP cohorts, respectively. Age over 40 years (Gen X and Boomers), female gender, and White race were each associated with higher return in both donor cohorts (p <.001). For the non‐CCP return donor cohort, the Millennial and Boomers were comparable. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate differences in returning donor trends between the two donor cohorts. The motivation of a first‐time CCP donor may be different than that of a non‐CCP donor. Further study to improve first‐time donor engagement would be worthwhile to expand the donor base with a focus on blood donor diversity emphasizing engagement of underrepresented minorities and younger donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study to determine the reasons for adverse reactions of allogeneic whole blood donation by teen donors compared to older donors in the the U.S. Red Cross blood centers was conducted. Results showed that young teen donors manifested a higher incidence of complications that related to blood donation, which required a higher maintenance of safety.

Background: A national serosurvey of U.S. blood donors conducted in partnership with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was initiated to estimate the prevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infections and vaccinations. Methods: Beginning in July 2020, the Nationwide Blood Donor Seroprevalence Study collaborated with multiple blood collection organizations, testing labs, and leadership from government partners to capture, test, and analyze approximately 150,000 blood donation specimens per month in a repeated, cross‐sectional seroprevalence survey. Results: A CDC website (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#nationwide-blood-donor-seroprevalence) provided stratified, population‐level results to public health professionals and the general public. Discussion: The study adapted operations as the pandemic evolved, changing specimen flow and testing algorithms, and collecting additional data elements in response to changing policies on universal blood donation screening and administration of SARS‐CoV‐2 spike‐based vaccines. The national serosurvey demonstrated the utility of serosurveillance testing of residual blood donations and highlighted the role of the blood collection industry in public–private partnerships during a public health emergency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most single-donor platelet (SDP) donors transition to plateletpheresis after prior red blood cell (RBC) donation. Recruitment may follow identification of a high platelet count, a marker associated with iron depletion (ID). SDP donors may have underrecognized risk for iron depletion.Study Design and Methods: To assess the prevalence of ID, we performed ferritin testing on male plateletpheresis donors with hemoglobin levels less than 13.5 g/dL. Multivariable logistic regression identified risk factors for low ferritin (LF; ferritin ≤26 ng/mL) and absent iron stores (AIS; ferritin <12 ng/mL). To assess the impact of notifying donors of LF results, we compared donation behavior of "Test" subjects before and after sending an LF notification letter to that of "Control" subjects before and after increasing the minimum hemoglobin for male donors. An electronic survey to Test donors inquired about iron supplementation practices.Results: Prevalence of LF was 50% and AIS was 23%, with increase in risk associated with more frequent SDP donation, both controlling for RBC donation and in donors with no recent RBC donations. Donation frequency after intervention declined less in 1272 Test donors (19%, from 13.9 to 11.2 annualized donations) than in 878 Control donors (49%, from 12.3 to 6.3 donations). Only 20% of Test donors reported taking supplemental iron when they received the LF letter; 64% of those not taking iron initiated iron supplementation following the letter.Conclusions: Donors were responsive to notification of LF and attendant messaging on iron supplementation. Ferritin testing potentially benefits donor health and a stable platelet supply. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study-IV-Pediatric (REDS-IV-P) Epidemiology, Surveillance and Preparedness of the Novel SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic (RESPONSE) seroprevalence study conducted monthly cross-sectional testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in blood donors in 6 US metropolitan regions to estimate the extent of SARS-CoV-2 infections over time. Methods During March–August 2020, approximately ≥1000 serum specimens were collected monthly from each region and tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using a well-validated algorithm. Regional seroprevalence estimates were weighted based on demographic differences compared with the general population. Seroprevalence was compared with reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case rates over time. Results For all regions, seroprevalence was <1.0% in March 2020. New York, New York, experienced the biggest increase (peak seroprevalence, 15.8% in May). All other regions experienced modest increases in seroprevalence (1%–2% in May–June to 2%–4% in July–August). Seroprevalence was higher in younger, non-Hispanic black, and Hispanic donors. Temporal increases in donor seroprevalence correlated with reported case rates in each region. In August, 1.3–5.6 estimated cumulative infections (based on seroprevalence data) per COVID-19 case were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Conclusions Increases in seroprevalence were found in all regions, with the largest increase in New York. Seroprevalence was higher in non-Hispanic black and Hispanic than in non-Hispanic white blood donors. SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing of blood donor samples can be used to estimate the seroprevalence in the general population by region and demographic group. The methods derived from the RESPONSE seroprevalence study served as the basis for expanding SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveillance to all 50 states and Puerto Rico. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From December 2020 to June 2021, 1654487 blood donors were tested for antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) S1 protein, and 1028547 (62.17%) were reactive. A rapid increase in prevalence was due to vaccination. Among a subset of 1567446 donors, 729771 (46.56%) reported SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, of whom 633769 (86.84%) were S1-antibody reactive only in response to vaccination and 68269 (9.35%) were reactive to both S1 and nucleocapsid in response to prior infection; the remainder were not reactive to either antibody. Among the 837675 (53.44%) donors who did not report vaccination, 210022 (25.07%) had reactivity to both antibodies and 29446 (3.52%) to S1 only. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In December 2015, the men who have sex with men (MSM) deferral was reduced to 12 months in the United States. We compared human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) incidence and residual risk before and after this policy change using data from >50% of the US blood supply. Study Design and Methods: Three estimation intervals from the Transfusion‐Transmissible Infections Monitoring System were compared: 15‐months pre‐ and two consecutive, nonoverlapping 15‐month post‐MSM deferral implementation. Repeat, first‐time, and weighted all‐donor incidences were estimated. Residual risk was calculated for all incidence estimates using the incidence/window‐period method. Results: HIV repeat donor incidence was 1.57 per 100 000 person‐years (phtpy) in the second 15‐month post change and not significantly different from pre‐MSM incidence of 2.19 phtpy. Similar values were seen for HCV (1.49 phtpy vs 1.46 phtpy) and HBV (1.14 phtpy vs 0.97 phtpy). In some cases, higher estimated incidence, but without significant change from pre‐MSM to the second post change period occurred for males and first‐time donors (eg, first‐time donors, second post change period: 6.12 phtpy HIV, 6.41 phtpy HCV and 5.34 phtpy HBV). Estimated per donation residual risk was 1:1.6 million for HIV, 1:2.0 million for HCV and 1:1.0 million for HBV based on weighted incidence for all donors. Conclusions: Repeat, first‐time, and overall donor incidence did not vary significantly comparing pre‐MSM to either of the post‐MSM estimation intervals. Residual risk estimates vary by study, but all yield residual risks in the United States of ≤1 per million, and thus far have not shown increasing risk with the 12‐month MSM policy change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Transfusion‐Transmissible Infections Monitoring System (TTIMS) combines data from four US blood collection organizations including approximately 60% of all donations to monitor demographic and temporal trends in infectious disease markers and policy impacts. Study Design and Methods: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) consensus‐positive definitions combined serology and nucleic acid testing results. These along with donor and donation characteristics were assembled into a single data set. Overall donation prevalence and demographic subsets were compared pre‐ and post‐implementation of the 2015 change in men who have sex with men (MSM) deferral policy, among other prevalence comparisons. Results: From October 2015 to September 2019, there were 712 HIV‐, 1735 HBV‐, and 5217 HCV‐positive samples identified from approximately 27.5 million donations (>9.4 million donors). Prevalences per 100 000 donations were 2.6 (HIV), 6.3 (HBV), and 19.0 (HCV), and the highest for all three agents were in donations from first‐time male donors. Two slight but significant increases in HIV prevalence were observed, both for comparisons of Year 1 (pre‐MSM policy change) versus Year 4 (post‐MSM policy change) for first‐time males and first‐time females; in contrast, similar comparisons demonstrated decreases in HCV prevalence (all donors and general trends for males and females). Except for HIV, prevalence increased with age; for all agents, prevalence was markedly higher in the south. Conclusions: No major trends were observed over 4 years covering the MSM policy change from indefinite to a 12‐month deferral, but ongoing monitoring is warranted. Demographic trends are consistent with those observed in other donor studies and community trends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: US blood donors are tested for Trypanosoma cruzi antibodies only at their first presentation, based on studies, reviewed here, demonstrating the absence of incident infections. Reports of autochthonous human transmissions of the parasite in Texas have raised concern about the safety of one-time testing.Methods: Positive donation frequencies were evaluated among first-time blood donations from 2007 to 2015. Rates and their temporal changes were evaluated in an area of high T. cruzi infection and compared with rates elsewhere. Donors with positive results were surveyed for risk factors and relevant demographic characteristics.Results: Data from 9.1 million first-time donations were analyzed; 585 (1:15,544) were confirmed positive by radioimmunoprecipitation assay (RIPA) or concordantly positive with a second screening test/licensed assay. Seroprevalence in first-time donors in Southern California (an area of high endemicity) was 1:2,747, or 5.7-fold higher than the overall rate. Rates did not change over time nationally but showed a nonsignificant consistent downward trend in Southern California. The majority (92%) of donors who responded to a questionnaire had one or more T. cruzi endemic-area risk factors. Five donors with likely autochthonous infection were identified (2007-2013); nine additional donors had RIPA false positivity.Conclusion: T. cruzi seroprevalence among donors nationally and in an area of high enzootic infection were stable or declining. Almost all interviewed seropositive donors had known risk factors indicating likely infection years earlier while residing in T. cruzi-endemic areas. In the United States, there was no evidence of increased T. cruzi prevalence among first-time donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Characteristics of US blood donors with recent (RBI) or occult (OBI) hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection are not well defined.Methods: Donors with RBI and OBI were identified by nucleic acid and serologic testing among 34.4 million donations during 2009-2015. Consenting donors were interviewed and their HBV S-gene sequenced.Results: The overall rate of HBV-infected donors was 7.95 per 100,000; of these, 0.35 per 100,000 and 1.70 per 100,000 were RBI and OBI, respectively. RBI (n = 120) and OBI (n = 583) donors constituted 26% of all HBV-infected (n = 2735) donors. Detection of HBV DNA in 92% of OBI donors required individual donation nucleic acid testing. Donors with OBI compared to RBI were older (mean age, 48 vs 39 years; p < 0.0001) with lower median viral loads (9 vs. 529 IU/mL; p < 0.0001). A higher proportion of OBI than RBI donors were born or resided in an endemic country (39% vs. 5%; p = 0.0078). Seventy-seven percent of all RBI and OBI donors had multiple sex partners, an HBV-risk factor. Of 40 RBI and 10 OBI donors whose S gene was sequenced, 33 (83%) and 6 (60%), respectively, carried HBV subgenotype A2; 18 (55%) and 2 (33%), respectively, shared an identical sequence. Infection with 1 or more putative HBV-immune-escape mutants was identified in 5 (50%) of OBI but no RBI donors.Conclusion: RBI and OBI continue to be identified at low rates, confirming the importance of comprehensive HBV DNA screening of US blood donations. HBV-infected donors require referral for care and evaluation and contact tracing; their HBV strains may provide important information on emergent genotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the United States, blood donor testing for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) was initiated in the early 1970s. More recently, testing for antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA have been added. The incidence of hepatitis B has been declining. This study reviews the current status of testing and questions the need for continuation of HBsAg testing.Study Design and Methods: From July 2011 to June 2015, a total of 22.4 million donations were serologically tested for HBsAg and anti-HBc and for HBV-DNA by nucleic acid testing (NAT). All reactive results were evaluated and a subset of donations that were either potential NAT yield (seronegative) or serologically positive but nonreactive by HBV NAT in minipools (MPs) of 16 were further evaluated by individual donation (ID)-NAT. Samples with detectable HBV DNA were defined as actively infected and considered potentially infectious.Results: Routine testing plus supplemental ID-NAT identified 2035 samples representing active infection including 1965 with anti-HBc, 1602 with HBsAg, and 1453 with HBV DNA by MP-NAT, for respective rates per hundred-thousand donations of 9.10, 8.78, 7.16, and 6.50, continuing the downward trend previously observed. There were 29 HBV DNA-yield samples (1:771,389), 35 HBsAg-yield samples (anti-HBc nonreactive), and 404 with occult hepatitis B infection. There were six samples with HBsAg and HBV DNA detectable only by ID-NAT in the absence of anti-HBc; additional testing was consistent with extremely low or negligible levels of DNA.Conclusions: Point estimates of HBV infection rates among blood donors continue to decline, as do those for incidence and residual risk. Elimination of HBsAg screening would have negligible impact, with a risk less than 1 per 4 million donations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The frequency of positive test results for transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs) among blood donors is an important index of safety; thus, appropriate monitoring is critical, particularly when there are changes in policies affecting donor suitability.Study Design and Methods: Testing algorithms from three large blood systems were reviewed and consensus definitions for a surveillance-positive result for hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV) established. In addition, information on each donation, including donor demographics and location, was collected. Combined data were analyzed to characterize the epidemiology of TTIs by person, place, and time.Results: Data from 14.8 million donations were collected for 2011 to 2012, representing more than 50% of the US blood supply. Surveillance-positive rates per 10,000 donations were as follows: HBV, 0.76; HCV, 2.0; HIV, 0.28; and HTLV 0.34. Rates did not vary between the 2 years, although there was variation within a year. With the exception of HTLV, rates were higher among males, and all rates were higher among first-time donations. Window-period donations (those positive only in nucleic acid tests) were infrequent (HBV, 13; HCV, 60; HIV, 14) during the 2-year period. Frequencies of surveillance-positive results varied by donor age and residence location.Conclusions: We demonstrated that standardized data from multiple major US blood systems can be combined and analyzed for change. However, TTI frequencies are low, impacting their sensitivity to change. Furthermore, observed fluctuations in TTI frequencies may be secondary to changes in blood donor demographics rather than necessarily reflecting the immediate impact of policy modification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The number of apheresis collections increased significantly in recent years; however, data on viral marker rates among these collections are lacking. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Apheresis collection data for 2004 to 2008 were analyzed. All collections were tested for antibodies and viral RNA for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV), hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc), antibody to human T-lymphotropic virus (anti-HTLV), and other markers. HBsAg-confirmed-positive but anti-HBc–nonreactive units were further verified by HBV DNA testing. RESULTS: From 2004 to 2008, apheresis collections for double red blood cells (R2) increased by 294% to a total of 37% of all apheresis collections. Marker rates (/100,000) among all apheresis collections were 1.41, 7.83, 2.04, and 0.28, for HIV, HCV, HBsAg, and HTLV. Among R2 collections, rates (/100,000) were 6- to 13-fold higher than among non-R2 collections for HIV (3.50 vs. 0.53), HCV (21.84 vs. 1.96), and HBsAg (5.83 vs. 0.44), but not HTLV (0.53 vs. 018). First-time male R2 donors accounted for 25% to 100% of positivity but only 1% to 5% of the total number of apheresis collections. Incidence (/100,000 person-years) and residual risk estimates among repeat apheresis donors between 2007 and 2008 for HIV were 3.82 and 1:1.0 million, for HCV were 1.53 and 1:3.2 million, and for HBsAg were 4.85 and 1:200,000. These estimates were comparable to those among repeat whole blood donors. CONCLUSION: The risk of major blood-borne infections among current apheresis collections was low; however, an upward trend in the viral marker frequency among apheresis donations was attributable to the contribution of first-time, male R2 donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) was introduced for blood donation screening in the United States in 1999. This study analyzes temporal trends of these two infections since NAT introduction. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Donation data from 1999 to 2008 were analyzed; each donation was tested for antibodies and viral RNA for HIV and HCV. Incidence for first-time (FT) donors was derived by multiplying that among repeat (RP) donors by the ratio of NAT yield rates between FT and RP donors. Incidence for all donors was the weighted mean based on percentage of FT and RP donors. Residual risk (RR) was determined using the window-period model. RESULTS: During the 10-year period approximately 66 million donations were screened with 32 HIV (1:2 million) and 244 HCV (1:270,000) NAT yield donations identified. HCV prevalence among FT donors decreased by 53% for 2008 compared to 1999. HIV and HCV incidence among RP donors increased in 2007 through 2008 compared to 2005 through 2006. During 2007 through 2008, HIV incidence was 3.1 per 105 person-years (py), with an RR estimate of 0.68 per 106 (1:1,467,000) donations; HCV incidence was 5.1 per 105 py, with an RR estimate of 0.87 per 106 (1:1,149,000). The increase in HIV incidence was primarily among 16- to 19-year-old, male African American donors and that in HCV was primarily among Caucasian donors of 50 or more years. Donors from the Southern United States had higher incidence rates. CONCLUSION: HCV prevalence decreased significantly since NAT introduction. The increase in HIV and HCV incidence in 2007 through 2008 warrants continued monitoring and investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: This study used two approaches to estimate the current incidence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in a US donor population. METHODS: HBV incidence was estimated through the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) yield approach and the seroconversion method. Residual risk was estimated by the incidence–window period model. HBsAg yield refers to an HBsAg confirmed-positive, antibody against hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc)–nonreactive donation, adjusted for false-positive neutralization results. The number of HBsAg-seroconverting repeat donors divided by total number of person-years of evaluation or the HBsAg yield rate divided by HBsAg yield window gave rise to incidence estimates. RESULTS: The seroconversion and the yield approach, respectively, gave an incidence estimate of 3.41 or 3.43 per 105 person-years. Using a revised infectious window period of 38 or 30 days for current HBsAg assays, the current residual risk for HBV was respectively estimated for 2006 to 2008 at 1 in 282,000 or 1 in 357,000 donations from the seroconversion approach and 1 in 280,000 or 1 in 355,000 donations from the yield approach. With the same database and methods, this is a decrease from 1 in 86,000 to 1 in 110,000 observed in 1997 to 1999. CONCLUSIONS: Current HBV incidence and residual risk are lower than earlier estimates, especially in the youngest donors, but remain higher in the absence of HBV nucleic acid test than those for human immunodeficiency virus or hepatitis C virus (HCV). In addition to the exclusion of HBsAg false-positive donors, the reduction could reflect shortened window periods and decreased incidence rates due to vaccination or other reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Serologic screening for syphilis has been justified in part as a surrogate marker for infections caused by other pathogens such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This study assessed the current surrogate value of the test. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Testing results for blood donors with the American Red Cross Blood Services between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, were analyzed. All donations were tested according to standard procedures for markers of HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV), syphilis, and other infections. The frequency of window-period (w-p) infections interdicted by syphilis testing was estimated. RESULTS: There were significantly higher frequencies of HIV, HCV, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), and HTLV confirmed-positive donations among those with positive syphilis test results, although the sensitivity of syphilis test positivity in these groups was low. Among more than 3 million repeat donors with complete testing through reactive donation confirmation for both syphilis and HIV (anti-HIV and HIV RNA), 225 seroconverted for syphilis but not for anti-HIV or HIV RNA and 83 converted for HIV (anti-HIV or HIV RNA) but not for syphilis, with only 1 who converted for both syphilis and HIV, resulting in an incidence ratio of 150 (95% confidence interval, 21-1080) and a sensitivity of 1.2 percent. No syphilis seroconverters converted for HCV, HBsAg, or anti-HTLV. CONCLUSION: Syphilis testing presents no surrogate value for incident HCV, HBV, and HTLV infections and could only remove approximately 1 HIV w-p unit of every 148 million donations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the objectives of the continuing medical education (CME) program of the journal. As stated, continuous participation in the CME program will enable learners to be better able to maintain current and practical knowledge of clinically relevant issues. As mentioned, the CME program will also enable learners to achieve a broad conceptual understanding of principles of immunohematology and their relevance to transfusion medicine.