ArticleTransfusion2014
A mathematical approach to estimate the efficacy of individual-donation and minipool nucleic acid amplification test options in preventing transmission risk by window period and occult hepatitis B virus infections.
Article in Transfusion, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Comparison of two nucleic acid amplification technology systems for detection of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus.Transfusion · 2020Article
- Hepatitis B Virus Blood Screening: Need for Reappraisal of Blood Safety Measures?Frontiers in medicine · 2018Review
- Occult Hepatitis Infection in Transfusion Medicine: Screening Policy and Assessment of Current Use of Anti-HBc Testing.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2017Review
- Occult Hepatitis B virus infection in previously screened, blood donors in Ile-Ife, Nigeria: implications for blood transfusion and stem cell transplantation.Virology journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSensitivity data from a head-to-head comparison study in South Africa were used to compare the efficacy of the Ultrio Plus assay in individual-donation (ID) and minipool (MP)4 and MP8 formats with that of TaqScreen MP6 in preventing hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmission risk. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsThe replicate nucleic acid test (NAT) results on 106 HBV NAT (Ultrio)-yield samples and 29 HBV DNA (Ultrio)-negative, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive samples were used to determine the viral load in copies/mL against the Eurohep HBV standard by probit analysis. Random viral load distributions were established in 32 pre-HBsAg window period (WP), 15 post-HBsAg WP, and 56 occult HBV infection (OBI) donations. Regression analysis of log viral load and Poisson distribution statistics of infectious HBV particles in blood components was used to predict infectivity and efficacy of NAT options in removing HBV transmission risk.
resultsFor red blood cell transfusions (20 mL of plasma), the modeling predicted an Ultrio Plus ID-NAT efficacy of 68 and 83% in removing WP and (antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen-negative) OBI transmission risk, respectively, compared to 52 and 49% by TaqScreen MP6. For 200 mL of fresh-frozen plasma the estimated efficacy levels by these ID- and MP6-NAT options reduced to 57 and 44% for WP and to 67 and 34% for OBI donations, respectively.
conclusionThe efficacy of the currently available commercial NAT systems in reducing HBV transmission risk is mainly driven by the pool size and the transfusion plasma volume. The modeled OBI transmission risk and NAT efficacy levels were in line with those recently reported in three lookback studies and give more insight in the incremental safety provided by HBsAg and antibody to hepatitis B core antigen testing of ID-NAT screened blood.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.