4.5 Article

Chagas Disease and Transfusion Risk in Italy: The Results of a National Survey

Journal

PATHOGENS
Volume 11, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11111229

Keywords

Chagas disease; epidemiological surveillance; transfusion transmissible infection; Tripanosoma cruzi; blood transfusion safety

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The survey conducted by the Italian National Blood Centre found that the transfusion risk of T. cruzi infection in Italy is very low, with only 15 out of 24,269 donors testing positive. This rate is lower than the number of positive donors for other transfusion transmissible infections in the same period.
Background: Universal serological screening in endemic areas is essential for preventing Chagas disease transmission by transfusions, while in non-endemic areas, screening is provided only to donors exposed to the infection risk. In this respect, in order to ensure high and uniform standards of quality and safety of blood components, the Italian National Blood Centre conducted a survey to detect information on management of donors at risk of Chagas disease and on the current transfusion risk. Methods: The National Blood Centre conducted a survey on preventive measures for Chagas disease in the years 2020-2021. Results: Survey results are broadly representative of the national situation; out of 24,269 tested donors, only 15 donors were confirmed positive (0.4 out of 100,000 donors). This rate is lower than the number of positive donors (72/100,000) for transfusion transmissible infections (HIV, HBV, HCV, and T. pallidum) in the same period. Furthermore, the number of T. cruzi positive blood donors is lower than the T. cruzi positive subjects in the general population. Conclusions: In Italy, T. cruzi infection transfusion risk may be considered still very low, and this is confirmed by the absence of documented transfusion transmission.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available