Tonderai Mapako1, David A Mvere, McLeod E Chitiyo, Simbarashe Rusakaniko, Maarten J Postma, Marinus van Hulst. 1. Unit of PharmacoEpidemiology & PharmacoEconomics (PE2), Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands; Planning, Information & Research Department, Coordination Department, Medical Services Department, National Blood Service Zimbabwe; Department of Community Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe; Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Martini Hospital, Groningen, Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: National Blood Service Zimbabwe human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk management strategy includes screening and discarding of first-time donations, which are collected in blood packs without an anticoagulant (dry pack). To evaluate the impact of discarding first-time donations on blood safety the HIV prevalence, incidence, and residual risk in first-time and repeat donations (wet packs) were compared. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Donor data from 2002 to 2010 were retrieved from a centralized national electronic donor database and retrospectively analyzed. Chi-square test was used to compare HIV prevalence with relative risk (RR), and the RR point estimates and 95% confidence interval (CI) are reported. Trend analysis was done using Cochran-Armitage trend test. HIV residual risk estimates were determined using published residual risk estimation models. RESULTS: Over the 9 years the overall HIV prevalence estimates are 1.29% (n = 116,058) and 0.42% (n = 434,695) for first-time and repeat donations, respectively. The overall RR was 3.1 (95% CI, 2.9-3.3; p < 0.0001). The overall mean residual transmission risk of HIV window phase donations in first-time was 1:7384 (range, 1:11,308-1:5356) and in repeat donors it was 1:5496 (range, 1:9943-1:3347). CONCLUSION: The significantly high HIV prevalence estimates recorded in first-time over repeat donations is indicative of the effectiveness of the HIV risk management strategy. However, comparable residual transmission risk estimates in first-time and repeat donors point to the need to further review the risk management strategies. Given the potential wastage of valuable resources, future studies should focus on the cost-effectiveness and utility of screening and discarding first-time donations.
BACKGROUND: National Blood Service Zimbabwe human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk management strategy includes screening and discarding of first-time donations, which are collected in blood packs without an anticoagulant (dry pack). To evaluate the impact of discarding first-time donations on blood safety the HIV prevalence, incidence, and residual risk in first-time and repeat donations (wet packs) were compared. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Donor data from 2002 to 2010 were retrieved from a centralized national electronic donor database and retrospectively analyzed. Chi-square test was used to compare HIV prevalence with relative risk (RR), and the RR point estimates and 95% confidence interval (CI) are reported. Trend analysis was done using Cochran-Armitage trend test. HIV residual risk estimates were determined using published residual risk estimation models. RESULTS: Over the 9 years the overall HIV prevalence estimates are 1.29% (n = 116,058) and 0.42% (n = 434,695) for first-time and repeat donations, respectively. The overall RR was 3.1 (95% CI, 2.9-3.3; p < 0.0001). The overall mean residual transmission risk of HIV window phase donations in first-time was 1:7384 (range, 1:11,308-1:5356) and in repeat donors it was 1:5496 (range, 1:9943-1:3347). CONCLUSION: The significantly high HIV prevalence estimates recorded in first-time over repeat donations is indicative of the effectiveness of the HIV risk management strategy. However, comparable residual transmission risk estimates in first-time and repeat donors point to the need to further review the risk management strategies. Given the potential wastage of valuable resources, future studies should focus on the cost-effectiveness and utility of screening and discarding first-time donations.
Authors: Donald J Brambilla; Michael P Busch; Roger Y Dodd; Simone A Glynn; Steven H Kleinman Journal: Transfusion Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Marion Vermeulen; Dhuly Chowdhury; Ronel Swanevelder; Eduard Grebe; Donald Brambilla; Ute Jentsch; Michael Busch; Gert Van Zyl; Edward L Murphy Journal: Vox Sang Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 2.144
Authors: Elizabeth Gonese; Tonderai Mapako; Janet Dzangare; Simbarashe Rusakaniko; Peter H Kilmarx; Maarten J Postma; Stella Ngwende; John Mandisarisa; Ponesai Nyika; David A Mvere; Owen Mugurungi; Mufuta Tshimanga; Marinus van Hulst Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Benjamin Seri; Albert Minga; Delphine Gabillard; Bamori Dembele; Seidou Konate; Jérôme Le Carrou; Lambert Dohoun; Yao Abo; Sophie Karcher; Patrick Coffie; Thérèse N'Dri-Yoman; Alain Attia; Serge P Eholié; Christine Danel; Karine Lacombe; Xavier Anglaret; Anders Boyd Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Evan M Bloch; Ruchika Goel; Silvano Wendel; Thierry Burnouf; Arwa Z Al-Riyami; Ai Leen Ang; Vincenzo DeAngelis; Larry J Dumont; Kevin Land; Cheuk-Kwong Lee; Adaeze Oreh; Gopal Patidar; Steven L Spitalnik; Marion Vermeulen; Salwa Hindawi; Karin Van den Berg; Pierre Tiberghien; Hans Vrielink; Pampee Young; Dana Devine; Cynthia So-Osman Journal: Vox Sang Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 2.996