Vox sanguinis · 2018
Factors associated with a second deferral among donors eligible for re-entry after a false-positive screening test for syphilis, HCV, HBV and HIV.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Grégoire Y, Germain M, Delage G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Since 25 May 2010, all donors at our blood centre who tested false-positive for HIV, HBV, HCV or syphilis are eligible for re-entry after further testing. Donors who have a second false-positive screening test, either during qualification for or after re-entry, are deferred for life. This study reports on factors associated with the occurrence of such deferrals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rates of second false-positive results were compared by year of deferral, transmissible disease marker, gender, age, donor status (new or repeat) and testing platform (same or different) both at qualification for re-entry and afterwards. Chi-square tests were used to compare proportions. Cox regression was used for multivariate analyses.
RESULTS: Participation rates in the re-entry programme were 42·1%: 25·6% failed to qualify for re-entry [different platform: 2·7%; same platform: 42·9% (P < 0·0001)]. After re-entry, rates of deferral for second false-positive results were 8·4% after 3 years [different platform: 1·8%; same platform: 21·4% (P < 0·0001)]. Deferral rates were higher for HIV and HCV than for HBV at qualification when tested on the same platform. The risk, when analysed by multivariate analyses, of a second deferral for a false-positive result, both at qualification and 3 years after re-entry, was lower for donors deferred on a different platform; this risk was higher for HIV, HCV and syphilis than for HBV and for new donors if tested on the same platform.
CONCLUSION: Re-entry is more often successful when donors are tested on a testing platform different from the one on which they obtained their first false-positive result.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rates of second false-positive results were compared by year of deferral, transmissible disease marker, gender, age, donor status (new or repeat) and testing platform (same or different) both at qualification for re-entry and afterwards. Chi-square tests were used to compare proportions. Cox regression was used for multivariate analyses.
RESULTS: Participation rates in the re-entry programme were 42·1%: 25·6% failed to qualify for re-entry [different platform: 2·7%; same platform: 42·9% (P < 0·0001)]. After re-entry, rates of deferral for second false-positive results were 8·4% after 3 years [different platform: 1·8%; same platform: 21·4% (P < 0·0001)]. Deferral rates were higher for HIV and HCV than for HBV at qualification when tested on the same platform. The risk, when analysed by multivariate analyses, of a second deferral for a false-positive result, both at qualification and 3 years after re-entry, was lower for donors deferred on a different platform; this risk was higher for HIV, HCV and syphilis than for HBV and for new donors if tested on the same platform.
CONCLUSION: Re-entry is more often successful when donors are tested on a testing platform different from the one on which they obtained their first false-positive result.