Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 309
rat
Risk of HIV Transmission from Blood Transfusion
The risk (R) of receiving a blood transfusion containing HIV depends
on a number of factors, including the prevalence (P) of HIV viremia in the
donor population, the likelihood (L) of donation during the preantibody
phase of viremia, the sensitivity (S) of the ELISA screening test to detect
HIV antibody when antibody is in fact present, and the number (n) of
units of blood (or blood products) received.
The risk (D) that a donated unit of blood contains HIV can be expressed
as:
D = PL + P(1-LO-S).
(1)
The first part of the expression to the right of the equals sign, PL,
represents the portion of risk due to blood donation during the
preantibody phase of infection. The remainder of the equation, P(1 - L)
(1 - S), represents the portion of risk due to donors with antibody whose
blood escapes detection by the screening test.
The pertinent concern from the vantage point of a blood recipient is the
following: Given the number of units transfused, what is the risk (R) that
one or more units contain HIV? This is approached by first asking the
computationally simpler, related question: What is the likelihood that
none of the transfused units contains HIV?
If n units are transfused, the likelihood (C) that none contains virus can
be expressed as:
C = `1 -D)n
309
.
(2)
OCR for page 310
310 APPENDIX C
TABLE C-1 Definitions of Variables Entering Estimates of Risk of HIV
Transmission from Blood Transfusion
Symbol
Definition
tl
Probability of HIV viremia in a donor
Mean time between development of HIV viremia and antibody formation
Mean time between development of HIV viremia and development of
clinical indications of disease (i.e., duration of possible unknowing
. .
transmission)
£ Relative likelihood of blood donation soon after HIV exposure compared
with later donation
L
D
C
n
R
Likelihood of donation during the preantibody phase of viremia
Risk that a donated unit of blood contains HIV
Likelihood that no unit of blood contains HIV
Number of units of blood transfused into a blood recipient
Risk of exposure to HIV from n units of transfused blood
Then the risk, R. of exposure to HIV in an individual receiving transfused
blood is:
R= 1-C.
(3)
Each of the elements entering Equation 1 is uncertain, though some
data are available to provide a basis for estimates. Tables C-1 and C-2
summarize the definitions, baseline assumptions, and optimistic and
pessimistic ranges in assumptions for each variable.
Following are comments on the variables entering the equations:
P: The nationwide experience with blood donor screening suggests that
the frequency of HIV in the United States donor population may be
between 1 and 10 per 10,000 (Schorr et al., 1985~. Lower figures may
TABLE C-2 Assumptions in the Estimation of Risk of HIV
Transmission from Blood Transfusion
Assumptions and Calculations
Very Very
SymbolBaseline Optimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic
P0.0004 0.0002 0.0001 0.001 0.001
to (weeks)4 4 4 4 4
to (weeks)260 410 520 260 130
£ 1.0 0.75 0.50 1.0 1.0
S 0.99 0.995 0.995 0.985 0.98
OCR for page 311
APPENDIX C 3 ~ ~
prevail in low-prevalence areas and also may be realized through in-
creased efforts to discourage donors who have engaged in high-risk
behaviors and by eliminating those who previously tested positive for
HIV antibodies. In areas with a higher prevalence of lIIV infection, the
frequency of HIV among donors can be expected to be higher. Also, as
more heterosexuals become infected (e.g., the female partners of men
who are bisexual or intravenous ding users), the frequency of HIV
infection may increase among donors who have no known history of risk
behaviors.
L: The likelihood of donation by an infected person during the
preantibody phase depends on the average duration of time stir in which
the patient may be viremic prior to formation of detectable antibody, the
average length of time (t2) during which a blood donor may be unknow-
in~lv infectious (i.e.. the interval between viremia and development of
O ,
.. . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ 1 ~1 1_~- _ 1-1 _1-~_~ rams _~ 1~_~:~
clinical indications of disease), and the relative ~e~noou tt~ or aonaung
blood soon after exposure. Specifically:
L = £t~lt2.
(4)
Evidence from a small number of patients suggests that the mean interval
between exposure and antibody formation is approximately eight weeks
(Lancet, 1984; Tucker et al., 19851. Though hard data are lacking, it is
reasonable to assume that viremia is extremely unlikely during the first
third of this interval, moderately likely during the second third, and
almost surely present during the final third. The net result would be an
effective average period of viremia prior to antibody formation of approx-
imately four weeks stir. The duration of time that a donor may unknow-
ingly be an HIV carrier is speculative. The baseline estimate for this mean
interval time (t2) between development of viremia and development of
.. . . .. .
clinical disease Is 5 years (Jaffe et al., 1985), with a range from 2.5 to 10
years. The likelihood of donating blood soon after exposure may be lower
than the likelihood of donating later because, for example, an isolated
homosexual encounter may be forgotten or discounted in memory over
time. A countervailing tendency may be for some to donate soon after an
exposure to reassure themselves about their freedom from disease. The
baseline relative likelihood (£) of early versus later donation is 1.0 (equal
likelihood). The optimistic range extends down to 0.5; the calculations
based on pessimistic assumptions retain the baseline value of 1.0 for the
relative likelihood (hi.
S.: Practically no diagnostic test is perfect. The sensitivity of the ELISA
screening test refers to its ability to detect antibody when antibody is
present. (The test's specificity, or its ability to exclude antibody when
none is present, is another measure of performance, though one no
relevant to this analysis.) Measurements of test sensitivity require an
OCR for page 312
312 APPENDIX C
TABLE C-3 Risk of Exposure to HIV from Blood Transfusion
(expressed as 1 per nearest thousandth)
Number of
Units Very Very
Transfused Baseline Optimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic
1 1/99,000 1/407,000 1/1,133,000 1/33,000 1/20,000
2 1/50,000 1/204,000 1/566,000 1/17,000 1/10,000
2.9a 1/34,000 1/140,000 1/391,000 1/11,000 1/7,000
3 1/33,0P0 1/136,000 1/378,000 1/11,000 1/7,000
4 1/25,000 1/102,000 1/283,000 1/8,000 1/5,000
5 1/20,000 1/81,000 1/227,000 1/7,000 1/4,000
6 1/17,000 1/68,000 1/189,000 1/6,000 1/3,000
7 1/14,000 1/58,000 1/162,000 1/5,000 1/3,000
8 1/12,000 1/51,000 1/142,000 1/4,000 1/2,000
9 1/11,000 1/45,000 1/126,000 1/4,000 1/2,000
10 1/10,000 1/41,000 1/113,000 1/3,000 1/2,000
15 1/7,000 1/27,000 1/76,000 1/2,000 < 1/1,000
20 1/5,000 1/20,000 1/57,000 1/2,000 < 1/1,000
30 1/3,000 1/14,000 1/38,000 < 1/1,000 < 1/1,000
aThe approximate average number of units transfused, based on the total number of units
of blood used annually in the United States (10 million) divided by the average number of
patients receiving blood in a year (3.5 million).
independent truth standard that could demonstrate unequivocally the
presence of antibody. No such absolute standard exists; hence, estimates
of sensitivity cannot be regarded as firmly established. Various manufac-
turers have provided estimates of ELISA test sensitivities ranging from
0.95 to 0.996 (Reesink et al., 1986; Weiss et al., 19861. The baseline
sensitivity for this analysis is 0.99, with a range from 0.98 to 0.995.
n: The number of units of blood received in transfusion depends, of
course, on individual clinical circumstances. The average number of units
received by a patient may be approximated by dividing the total number
of units of blood used annually in the United States (10 million) by the
number of patients receiving blood during a year (3.5 million). This figure
of approximately 2.9 units per patient is probably a slight underestimation
because a single patient receiving blood on separate hospital admissions
would be counted as two separate patients in the year's tabulations.
Table C-3 summarizes the results of the risk of exposure to HIV for
recipients of varying numbers of units of transfused blood. The results are
shown using baseline assumptions and using the range of optimistic and
pessimistic assumptions taken from Table C-2.
The risk to a hypothetical blood recipient from an average number of
units transfused is, under baseline assumptions, approximately 1 in 34,000.
OCR for page 313
APPENDIX C 313
Progressively more optimistic assumptions yield estimates of approxi-
mately l in 140,000 and 1 in 391,000. Progressively more pessimistic
assumptions produce estimates of approximately 1 in 11,000 and 1 in
7,000.
The risk rises as the number of units transfused increases. For example,
under baseline assumptions the risk from a single unit of blood is
approximately 1 in 99,000; from 5 units the risk is 1 in 20,000; and from 10
units the risk is 1 in 10,000. The recipient of 4 units under optimistic
assumptions has about the same risk (1 in 102,000) as does the recipient
of 1 unit under baseline assumptions (1 in 99,0001. The recipient of 1 unit
under pessimistic assumptions has about the same risk (1 in 33,000) as
does the recipient of 3 units under baseline assumptions (1 in 33,0001.
The introduction of antibody testing has reduced the risk of HIV
transmission to blood recipients by a substantial margin. In other words,
instead of nearly 4,000 recipients of viremic units, the baseline calcula-
tions project the transfusion of only about 100 (3,500,000/34,000) HIV-
infected units each year. Most of the current risk from HIV in blood
transfusion relates to the possibility of blood donation during the
preantibody phase of HIV infection. This emphasizes the importance of
self-selection by potential donors to eliminate those who have engaged in
high-risk behaviors.
The wide range in the estimated risk under different sets of assumptions
highlights the uncertainty in these projections. As experience and addi-
tional data become available, more accurate estimates of risk may be
possible.
REFERENCES
Jaffe, H. W., W. W. Darrow, D. F. Echenberg, P. M. O'Malley, J. P. Getchell, V. S.
Kalyanaraman, R. H. Byers, D. P. Drennan, E. H. Braff, J. W. Curran, and D. P. Francis.
1985. The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in a cohort of homosexual men. A
six-year follow-up study. Ann. Intern. Med. 103:210-214.
Lancer. 1984. Needlestick transmission of HTLV-III from a patient infected in Africa.
Lancet II:1376-1377.
Reesink, H. W., J. G. Huisman, M. Gonsalves, et al. 1986. Evaluation of six enzyme
immunoassays for antibody against human immunodeficiency virus. Lancet II:483-486.
Schorr, J. B., A. Berkowitz, P. D. Cumming, A. Katz, and S. G. Sandier. 1985. Prevalence
of HTLV-III antibody in American blood donors. N. Engl. J. Med. 313:384-385.
Tucker, J., C. A. Ludham, A. Craig, et al. 1985. HTLV-III infection associated with
glandular fever like illness in a hemophiliac. Lancet II:585.
Weiss, S. H., J. J. Goedert, M. G. Sarngadharan, et al. 1985. Screening test for HTLV-III
(AIDS-agent) antibodies: Specificity, sensitivity, and applications. JAMA 253:221-225.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
baseline assumptions
