Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Transfusion. 2017 Mar;57(3pt2):823-831. doi: 10.1111/trf.13939. Epub 2016 Dec 1.

A comparison of methods for estimating the incidence of human immunodeficiency virus infection in repeat blood donors.

Author information

1
RTI International, Rockville, Maryland.
2
Blood Systems Research Institute, San Francisco, California.
3
Medical Office, American Red Cross, Rockville, Maryland.
4
Blood Epidemiology and Clinical Therapeutics Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
5
Department of Pathology, University of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in repeat blood donors has been estimated using seven methods. Although incidence is always calculated as cases per person-time, approaches to selecting cases and calculating person-time vary. Incidence estimates have not been compared among methods.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS:

The seven methods were compared in a simulation study. Because three methods used information from donations made before an estimation interval, 8 years of donation and infection history were simulated, and Years 7 and 8 were treated as the estimation interval for all methods. An exponential random variate was assigned to each donor to simulate the time to infection. Infection risk was constant over 8 years in one scenario but increased at various rates in seven other scenarios. The infection risk scenarios were combined with four mixes of donation frequency to generate 32 test conditions.

RESULTS:

Three methods produced biased estimates under all conditions. Three other methods were biased under most conditions. Bias from most methods increased as donation frequency declined. The single method that consistently produced unbiased estimates was the only method that involved the standard epidemiological approach of tabulating all interdonation intervals (IDIs) within the estimation interval. Bias was eliminated from one of the consistently biased methods by a simple modification that involved the average IDI in a sample of donors.

CONCLUSION:

The standard epidemiological approach is recommended if required data are available. Otherwise, the modified method involving the estimated average IDI should be considered. Investigators should use caution when comparing incidence estimates among studies that use different estimation methods or donation frequencies.

PMID:
27910095
PMCID:
PMC5368013
DOI:
10.1111/trf.13939
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center