C R Seed1, V C Hoad1, H M Faddy2, P Kiely3, A J Keller1, J Pink2. 1. Australian Red Cross Blood Service, Perth, WA, Australia. 2. Australian Red Cross Blood Service, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 3. Australian Red Cross Blood Service, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ross River virus (RRV) is an enveloped, RNA alphavirus in the same antigenic group as chikungunya virus. Australia records an annual average of 5000 laboratory-confirmed RRV infections. While RRV is currently geographically restricted to the Western Pacific, the capacity of arboviruses for rapid expansion is well established. The first case of RRV transfusion-transmission was recently described prompting a comprehensive risk assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To estimate the RRV residual risk, we applied laboratory-confirmed RRV notifications to two published models. This modelling generated point estimates for the risk of viraemia in the donor population, the risk of collecting a viraemic donation and the predicted number of infected components. RESULTS: The EUFRAT model estimated the risk of infection in donors as one in 95 039 (one in 311 328 to one in 32 399) to one in 14 943 (one in 48 593 to one in 5094). The point estimate for collecting a RRV viraemic donation varied from one in 166 486 (one in 659 078 to one in 49 158) (annualized national risk) to one in 26 117 (one in 103 628 to one in 7729) (area of high transmission). The modelling predicted 8-11 RRV-infected labile blood components issued in Australia during a 1-year period. CONCLUSION: Considering the uncertainty in the modelled estimates, the unknown rate of RRV donor viraemia and the low severity of any recipient RRV infection, additional risk management for RRV in Australia will initially be restricted to strengthening the messaging to donors regarding prompt reporting of any postdonation illnesses.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Ross River virus (RRV) is an enveloped, RNA alphavirus in the same antigenic group as chikungunya virus. Australia records an annual average of 5000 laboratory-confirmed RRV infections. While RRV is currently geographically restricted to the Western Pacific, the capacity of arboviruses for rapid expansion is well established. The first case of RRV transfusion-transmission was recently described prompting a comprehensive risk assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To estimate the RRV residual risk, we applied laboratory-confirmed RRV notifications to two published models. This modelling generated point estimates for the risk of viraemia in the donor population, the risk of collecting a viraemic donation and the predicted number of infected components. RESULTS: The EUFRAT model estimated the risk of infection in donors as one in 95 039 (one in 311 328 to one in 32 399) to one in 14 943 (one in 48 593 to one in 5094). The point estimate for collecting a RRV viraemic donation varied from one in 166 486 (one in 659 078 to one in 49 158) (annualized national risk) to one in 26 117 (one in 103 628 to one in 7729) (area of high transmission). The modelling predicted 8-11 RRV-infected labile blood components issued in Australia during a 1-year period. CONCLUSION: Considering the uncertainty in the modelled estimates, the unknown rate of RRVdonor viraemia and the low severity of any recipient RRV infection, additional risk management for RRV in Australia will initially be restricted to strengthening the messaging to donors regarding prompt reporting of any postdonation illnesses.