Snowy Owl
Retired in 2010, In Memoriam
JAMA - Journal of American Medical Association
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] <nobr>Bridget M. Kuehn</nobr> [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] JAMA. 2006;295:1235-1236. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Studies Propose Targeted Screening of Blood for West Nile Virus[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] JAMA. 2006;295:1235-1236. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]When evidence emerged in 2002 that the West Nile virus could<sup> </sup>be transmitted through blood, the US Food and Drug Administration<sup> </sup>(FDA) and blood-screening organizations reacted quickly to maintain<sup> </sup>the safety of the blood supply by screening for this infectious<sup> </sup>agent. By 2003, the FDA had recommended that blood banks screen<sup> </sup>blood for the West Nile virus using an investigational nucleic<sup> </sup>acid test. Since then, blood banks across the country have used<sup> </sup>various strategies, including individual or pooled blood sample<sup> </sup>testing, to prevent this infectious agent from contaminating<sup> </sup>the blood supply.<sup> </sup>[/FONT] [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]But some scientists believe these strategies may not provide<sup> </sup>sufficient public health benefit to justify their expense, and<sup> </sup>they recommend using more targeted testing strategies that would<sup> </sup>reduce costs. Two recent cost-effectiveness analyses suggest<sup> </sup>two reasons for considering alternative screening strategies:<sup> </sup>the high cost of testing the blood supply and the low risk that<sup> </sup>infection with <nobr>. . .</nobr> [Full Text of this Article][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]