Demographic characteristics and prevalence of serologic markers among donors who use the confidential unit exclusion process: the Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study

BACKGROUND: Most blood centers utilize a confidential unit exclusion (CUE) process, intended to reduce the risk of transfusion‐associated infectious diseases by allowing high‐risk donors confidentially to exclude their blood from use for transfusion. The effectiveness of this method remains controversial. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Confirmatory or supplemental test results for antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus, human T‐lymphotropic virus type I, and hepatitis C virus, as well as hepatitis B surface antigen and syphilis and screening test results for antibodies to hepatitis B core (antigen) and alanine aminotransferase levels were obtained for approximately 1.8 million units donated during 1991 and 1992 at five blood centers within the United States. The prevalences of these infectious disease markers in units that the donors confidentially excluded (CUE+) and units that the donors did not exclude (CUE‐) were calculated and examined within demographic subgroups. RESULTS: Units that were CUE+ were 8 to 41 times more likely to be seropositive for antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus, hepatitis B surface antigen, and syphilis and three to four times more likely to react for antibody to hepatitis B core (antigen) or to have elevated alanine aminotransferase levels than units that were CUE‐ (p < 0.001). The positive predictive value of CUE (the percentage of CUE+ units that were confirmed seropositive for any marker) was 3.5 percent, and the sensitivity of CUE (the percentage of confirmed‐seropositive units that were CUE+) was 2.3 percent. CONCLUSION: The current CUE process has low sensitivity and apparently low positive predictive value, and in many cases, it appeared that donors misunderstood it. Yet, CUE was not a “random process,” as CUE+ units were more likely to be seropositive for any infectious disease marker than CUE‐ units. This suggests that efforts to improve the CUE system may be warranted. As risk factors for transfusion‐transmitted infection become more difficult to identify by history‐based screening, however, such efforts may have limited effect.

[1]  L. Friedman,et al.  Effects of oral donor questioning about high‐risk behaviors for human immunodeficiency virus infection , 1992, Transfusion.

[2]  D. Hosmer,et al.  Applied Logistic Regression , 1991 .

[3]  P. Holland,et al.  The CUE debate (continued): on surrogate tests and surrogate endpoints , 1991, Transfusion.

[4]  M. Busch,et al.  Confidential unit exclusion: how should it be evaluated? , 1991, Transfusion.

[5]  J. Mosley.  Who should be our blood donors? , 1991, Transfusion.

[6]  L. Petersen,et al.  Human immunodeficiency virus type 1‐infected blood donors: behavioral characteristics and reasons for donation. , 1991, Transfusion.

[7]  T. Zuck.  Low technology in a high technology era , 1991, Transfusion.

[8]  A. M. Rose,et al.  Screening potential blood donors at risk for human immunodeficiency virus , 1991, Transfusion.

[9]  H. Soloway.  Confidential unit exclusion (CUE) is just another test , 1991, Transfusion.

[10]  Y. Hsueh,et al.  A study of confidential unit exclusion , 1990, Transfusion.

[11]  H. Perkins,et al.  Questionable efficacy of confidential unit exclusion , 1990, Transfusion.

[12]  J. Menitove.  Current risk of transfusion-associated human immunodeficiency virus infection. , 1990, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[13]  G. R. Carter,et al.  Efficacy of various methods of confidential unit exclusion in identifying potentially infectious blood donations , 1989, Transfusion.

[14]  G. Leparc,et al.  Impact of explicit questions about high‐risk activities on donor attitudes and donor deferral patterns. Results in two community blood centers , 1989, Transfusion.

[15]  J. Chiavetta,et al.  Donor self‐exclusion patterns and human immunodeficiency virus antibody test results over a twelve‐month period , 1989, Transfusion.

[16]  H. Perkins,et al.  How well has self‐exclusion worked? , 1988, Transfusion.

[17]  T. Zuck.  Greetings—a final look back with comments about a policy of a zero‐ risk blood supply , 1987, Transfusion.

[18]  J. Chiavetta,et al.  Evaluation of a confidential method of excluding blood donors exposed to human immunodeficiency virus: studies on hepatitis and cytomegalovirus markers , 1987, Transfusion.

[19]  B. Teague,et al.  Blood donor screening for AIDS: self-exclusion with bar codes. , 1987, Texas medicine.

[20]  Susan C. Roberts,et al.  Voluntary self-exclusion to reduce transmission of AIDS by blood transfusion. , 1987, JAMA.

[21]  J. Chiavetta,et al.  Evaluation of a confidential method of excluding blood donors exposed to human Immunodeficiency virus , 1986, Transfusion.

[22]  N. Halsey,et al.  The effectiveness of voluntary self-exclusion on blood donation practices of individuals at high risk for AIDS. , 1986, JAMA.

[23]  Susan C. Roberts,et al.  Voluntary deferral of blood donations and HTLV-III antibody positivity. , 1986, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  E. Zang,et al.  Measures to decrease the risk of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome transmission by blood transfusion , 1985, Transfusion.

[25]  A. Silvergleid.  Donor screening. , 1992, Clinics in Laboratory Medicine.

[26]  E. Singer,et al.  Trends in sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics of HIV antibody-positive blood donors. , 1991, AIDS education and prevention : official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education.