Reference no: EM133399842
Assignment:
The safety of the US blood supply from infectious disease agents is currently very high. Since HIV testing was approved by the FDA in 1985 to screen blood donations in the US, a number of additional assays and technologies have been approved and are now in place to screen blood donations in the US. The sensitivity and specificity of these assays has improved over time. In addition, by the late 1990s early 2000s Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT) became available. Currently, testing for several agents such as HIV, HBV, and HCV involves more than one test or technology.
While there has been some testing eliminated over time (ALT, P24 antigen, Zika), there is still a current debate within the transfusion medicine community about the cost effectiveness of all this testing. Are we over testing for some of these agents? Would the safety of the blood supply decrease if we eliminate some testing? Please use the below publications and others as you see fit, to answer the following questions and to engage your classmates in the discussion.
Screening blood donors for hepatitis C virus, the challenge to consider cost-effectiveness.pdf
Relative efficacy of nucleic acid amplification testing and serologic screening in preventing HCV transmission.pdf
1. What is your take on the current debate and why? Do not confine your answers to HCV. You can write about any other agent.
2. With additional transfusion-transmitted infectious disease agents in the horizon, the FDA is currently contemplating adding and approving assays for new agents in the near future. Which agent (s) should be approved next and why?
3. If you could eliminate one test that is required now, which one would it be and why?
4. When Pathogen Inactivation technologies are FDA-approved for all blood products, should we continue testing for all these agents?