You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 151 No. 10, OCTOBER 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (4)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Percutaneous Injuries Among Health Care Workers

The Real Value of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing of 'Donor' Blood

Upton D. Allen, MBBS, MSc, FAAP, FRCPC; Michael Guerriere, MD; Stanley E. Read, MD, PhD, FRCPC; Allan S. Detsky, MD, PhD, FRCPC

Arch Intern Med. 1991;151(10):2033-2040.


Abstract

A decision analysis was conducted to examine whether health care workers should receive short-term (42 days) zidovudine treatment following percutaneous exposure to blood, as well as to determine the value of testing "donor" (patient's) blood. Three alternative options were analyzed: treat all, treat none, and test. In the treat all option, all health care workers receive short-term zidovudine therapy immediately after exposure; in the treat none option, no one receives zidovudine; and in the test option, donor blood is tested, and if it is human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive, zidovudine is given. Baseline variables were obtained from the literature. Each outcome was expressed as a utility; this is a method of quantifying the values that persons place on different health states. The results showed that the test option was preferred. Sensitivity analyses indicated that even if the risk of seroconversion were zero or the effectiveness of zidovudine were zero or the drug were withheld, this option was preferred, thus indicating some value of testing other than merely identifying health care workers who should receive zidovudine. In the baseline analysis, this was derived from the fact that approximately 95% of the health care workers would be reassured by a negative test; ie, only approximately 5% of donors are HIV positive. If the prevalence of HIV seropositivity exceeded 42%, the treat none option was preferred. This was found to be due to the fact that increased numbers of health care workers would be told that they were exposed to HIV-positive blood. The "worrying factor" associated with such an exposure was such that above 42% HIV seropositivity, the treat none option was preferred overall. Thus, the real value of testing donor blood is in identifying those persons (>95%) who could be told that they were exposed to HIV-negative blood, that is, reducing their worrying factor to zero. Because acquired immunodeficiency syndrome is a fatal disease, and given that zidovudine is the only available therapeutic option at present, the drug has an important role to play if its effectiveness is greater than zero.

(Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:2033-2040)



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Pediatrics, the Division of Infectious Diseases, The Hospital for Sick Children (Drs Allen and Read), the Departments of Medicine and Health Administration, University of Toronto (Dr Detsky), and the Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, the Toronto Hospital (Drs Guerriere and Detsky), Toronto, Ontario. Dr Allen is now with the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa.


Footnotes

Accepted for publication April 22, 1991.

Reprint requests to EN G-246, The Toronto Hospital, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2C4 (Dr Detsky).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Primer on Medical Decision Analysis: Part 1--Getting Started
Detsky et al.
Med Decis Making 1997;17:123-125.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1991 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.