4.6 Article

Risk Factors and Screening for Trypanosoma cruzi Infection of Dutch Blood Donors

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151038

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Sanquin Blood Supply Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Blood donors unaware of Trypanosoma cruzi infection may donate infectious blood. Risk factors and the presence of T. cruzi antibodies in at-risk Dutch blood donors were studied to assess whether specific blood safety measures are warranted in the Netherlands. Methodology Birth in a country endemic for Chagas disease (CEC), having a mother born in a CEC, or having resided for at least six continuous months in a CEC were considered risk factors for T. cruzi infection. From March through September 2013, risk factor questions were asked to all donors who volunteered to donate blood or blood components. Serum samples were collected from donors reporting one or more risk factors, and screened for IgG antibodies to T. cruzi by EIA. Results Risk factors for T. cruzi infection were reported by 1,426 of 227,278 donors (0.6%). Testing 1,333 at-risk donors, none (0.0%; 95%, CI 0.0-0.4%) was seroreactive for IgG antibodies to T. cruzi. A total of 472 donors were born in a CEC; 553 donors reported their mother being born in a CEC; and 1,121 donors reported a long-term stay in a CEC. The vast majority of reported risk factors were related to Suriname and Brazil. Overall, the participants resided for 7,694 years in CECs, which equals 2.8 million overnight stays. Of those, 1.9 million nights were spent in Suriname. Conclusions/Significance Asymptomatic T. cruzi infection appears to be extremely rare among Dutch blood donors. Blood safety interventions to mitigate the risk of T. cruzi transmission by transfusion would be highly cost-ineffective in the Netherlands, and are thus not required.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available