4.4 Article

Screening for blood born viruses in assisted reproduction: is annual testing necessary?

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
卷 299, 期 6, 页码 1709-1713

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05112-0

关键词

ART; Hepatitis; HIV; Viral screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Screening for blood born viruses is routinely performed before fertility treatment in assisted reproduction technology (ART) clinics worldwide. It involves testing for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV), among others. Identifying patients with positive viral screening allows to refer them and their partners for appropriate counseling and treatment. The need for repeat viral screening and its required frequency have never been clearly established. In Israel, viral screening is mandatory and is repeated annually. Our aim was to determine the prevalence of HBV, HCV, and HIV seroconversion in patients with negative screening upon initiation of ART treatment. Methods A retrospective analysis of viral screening tests of all fertility patients in a single assisted conception unit between 1997 and 2015. Results During the study period, 2844 patients were treated at our clinic, out of whom 1945 patients met the inclusion criteria. The average length of treatment was 1.61 +/- 0.81 years, during which female patients underwent screening tests 2.6 +/- 0.9 times, and male patients 2.3 +/- 1.2 times. No case of seroconversion to any of the three viruses was noted during the entire study period, resulting a seroconversion rate of 0%. Conclusions Primary infection with HBV, HCV, or HIV is an extremely rare event among Israeli infertile patients, and the risk for seroconversion in this population is practically nil. Annual screening of both partners leads to substantial costs and appears to be futile. Our results question the current practice and support increasing the interval between screening tests in low-risk populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据