Transfusion · 2021
Blood donor screening in the Netherlands: Universal anti-HBc screening in combination with HBV nucleic acid amplification testing may allow discontinuation of hepatitis B virus antigen testing.
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.
van de Laar Thijs J, Hogema Boris M, Molenaar-de Backer Marijke W, Marijt-van der Kreek Tanneke, Zaaijer Hans L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, blood donor screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) consists of HBsAg screening since the 1970s, HBV DNA minipool testing (MP-NAT) since 2008, and anti-HBc screening since 2011. Anti-HBc reactivity causes deferral only if anti-HBs titers are <200 IU/mL, or when anti-HBc was acquired during follow-up.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Over 5.5 million donations from 582,459 Dutch donors were screened for HBV DNA, HBsAg, anti-HBc, and, if anti-HBc positive, also for anti-HBs. The added value, expressed as the yield of (potentially) infectious and/or recent HBV infections versus unnecessary donor loss, was evaluated for each of the three HBV screening tests.
RESULTS: HBV donor screening identified 89 HBV-infected donors with at least two reactive HBV markers (MP-NAT, HBsAg and/or anti-HBc). Single HBV-marker yield was: 5 MP-NAT-only, 0 HBsAg-only, and 20 anti-HBc-only donors. In addition, anti-HBc screening yielded 1,067 potentially infectious donors at risk for occult HBV infection (OBI). In total, 4,126 (0.71%) donors were anti-HBc-reactive at first-time screening, and 1,098 (0.19%) seroconverted during follow-up. Anti-HBc-related donor loss was limited to 2,627 (0.45%) donors using anti-HBs titers and two-strike programs. Donor loss due to MP-NAT and HBsAg screening was extremely low: 0 and 128 donors, respectively.
CONCLUSION: HBV donor screening could be limited to MP-NAT and anti-HBc screening. MP-NAT and anti-HBc improved blood safety by intercepting infectious donations from donors with recent infection or OBI, while HBsAg did not. Unnecessary donor loss related to anti-HBc screening is substantial but does not endanger the continuity of the blood supply.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Over 5.5 million donations from 582,459 Dutch donors were screened for HBV DNA, HBsAg, anti-HBc, and, if anti-HBc positive, also for anti-HBs. The added value, expressed as the yield of (potentially) infectious and/or recent HBV infections versus unnecessary donor loss, was evaluated for each of the three HBV screening tests.
RESULTS: HBV donor screening identified 89 HBV-infected donors with at least two reactive HBV markers (MP-NAT, HBsAg and/or anti-HBc). Single HBV-marker yield was: 5 MP-NAT-only, 0 HBsAg-only, and 20 anti-HBc-only donors. In addition, anti-HBc screening yielded 1,067 potentially infectious donors at risk for occult HBV infection (OBI). In total, 4,126 (0.71%) donors were anti-HBc-reactive at first-time screening, and 1,098 (0.19%) seroconverted during follow-up. Anti-HBc-related donor loss was limited to 2,627 (0.45%) donors using anti-HBs titers and two-strike programs. Donor loss due to MP-NAT and HBsAg screening was extremely low: 0 and 128 donors, respectively.
CONCLUSION: HBV donor screening could be limited to MP-NAT and anti-HBc screening. MP-NAT and anti-HBc improved blood safety by intercepting infectious donations from donors with recent infection or OBI, while HBsAg did not. Unnecessary donor loss related to anti-HBc screening is substantial but does not endanger the continuity of the blood supply.