A novel strategy for screening blood donors for syphilis at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Ghana

Francis Sarkodie, H Ullum, E Owusu-Dabo, S Owusu-Ofori, A Owusu-Ofori, Oliver Hassall

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective

To implement and describe a novel syphilis screening strategy for blood donors.

Background

The seroprevalence of syphilis in blood donors is often high in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) although the proportion of infectious donations is probably low. Syphilis screening may not happen at all; or the use of non-specific screening tests, which have high false positive rates, results in many donations being discarded unnecessarily. This can have a critical effect on already inadequate blood supplies.

Materials and Methods

Blood donors were screened at the time of donation with an anti-treponemal rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and blood collected irrespective of the result. Units screening negative for syphilis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B and C were released to stock. RDT screen-positive units were re-tested with rapid plasma reagin (RPR) – units testing negative were released to stock and test-positive units discarded.

Results

Of the 2213 blood donors, 182 (8·2%; 182/2213) screened positive by RDT. In addition, 38 out of these 182 (20·9%) were RPR positive on post-donation testing. Over 2 months there was a 79% reduction in blood units discarded due to a positive syphilis screen.

Conclusion

In other LMIC, this novel strategy can contribute to improving blood safety without jeopardising blood supply.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)63-66
Number of pages4
JournalTransfusion Medicine
Volume26
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Feb 2016

Keywords

  • Blood donation testing
  • Blood safety
  • Serological testing

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A novel strategy for screening blood donors for syphilis at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Ghana'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this