Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39895283›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2025

Human T-Lymphotropic Virus Screening of Blood Donations in England Between 2002 and 2021-Comparison of Screening Strategies.

Heli Harvala, Katy Davison, Mhairi Webster, Claire Reynolds, Graham P Taylor

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Epidemiology and Clinical Outcomes of HTLV-1: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Endemic and Nonendemic Regions.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Heli HarvalaMicrobiology Services, NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9154-4190
Katy DavisonNHSBT and UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) Epidemiology Unit, UKHSA, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6337-892X
Mhairi WebsterMicrobiology Services, NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0004-8564-2893
Claire ReynoldsNHSBT and UKHSA Epidemiology Unit, NHSBT, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3452-0832
Graham P TaylorSection of Virology, Department of Infectious Disease, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3773-2390

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR203338
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV) is associated with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma and myelopathy. Here we present virological and epidemiological data on HTLV screening of blood donations in England between 2002 and 2021, implemented to prevent its transmission via blood transfusion.

methodsData on HTLV testing of blood donations was reviewed; it was initially conducted in pools (2002-2012) and subsequently using individual samples (all donors, 2013-2016; first-time donors and non-leucodepleted component donors, 2017-2021). Data included annual number of donations screened, initial and repeat reactives as well as confirmed positives. Further information, such as likely source of infection, was obtained for HTLV-positives.

resultsOver the 20-year study period, a total of 30 679 741 blood donations were screened for HTLV in England. Under pooled screening strategy, the annual rate of repeat reactive donations remained <5:100 000. However, this rate increased to 51:100 000 with individual screening and further to 123:100 000 with selective screening. A total of 5032 samples were repeat reactive, of which 278 were confirmed HTLV-positives. Although the specificity under each scenario exceeded 99.9%, the rate of repeat reactives was around 50-fold higher in individual compared to pooled screening. Most HTLV infected were UK-born, most likely acquired their infection unknowingly through breast feeding or heterosexual intercourse with an individual associated with an HTLV-endemic country.

conclusionsThese data highlight that pooled testing can be advantageous in low-prevalence settings due to its high specificity and reduced non-specific reactivity. Whether pooling is an applicable strategy to tackle the burden of HTLV infection in resource-poor, HTLV-endemic countries requires further investigations.

Indexed as

Blood DonorsDonor SelectionHTLV-I InfectionsMass ScreeningAdultBlood DonationEnglandFemaleHumansHuman T-lymphotropic virus 1MaleMiddle Agedassay specificityblood donation screening in EnglandHTLVpooled testing

Identifiers

PMID39895283
PMCPMC12314490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.