Subscribe to Search results

Dr Cleghorn reported that several people had "raised transaminases not associated with viral hepatitis. Some 3% of new donors would be excluded if the criterion of one raised transaminase was applied. In addition there would be a problem of responsibility to apparently healthy donors found to have raised transaminase(s)."

Published on:

"The Advisory Group on testing of the presence of Hepatitis B surface antigen and its antibody agreed that no new policy on testing for transaminases needed to be adopted. These tests should not be used to screen blood donors."

Published on:

The Blood Transfusion Research Committee concluded that "The identification of donors and units of blood associated with possible cases of non-A, non-B hepatitis" and "Epidemiological surveys to assess the size of the problem in relation to blood transfusions" required investigation.

Published on:

Dr Paul Holland acknowledged that ALT screening of donors appeared to be a "promising way to decrease the risk of post-transfusion hepatitis", and questioned whether the expected benefit to patients was "worth the drawbacks, especially to the donors and to the blood-service complex".

Published on:

Dr Brian McClelland reported to the SNBTS directors that he had prepared a protocol for a study of the transmission of NANBH by transfusion for an MRC meeting. Directors agreed at the meeting that they would not proceed with liver function tests on existing donations for the time being.

Published on:

Report on Post-transfusion hepatitis in a London hospital: results of a two-year prospective study was published. The report explained that "It was arbitrarily decided that where such other potential causes existed, the patient would not be regarded as suffering from viral hepatitis." It also acknowledged that the "exclusion of all patients having other possible causes for their liver damage may have contributed to the low incidence of hepatitis in the present study".

Published on:

The MRC Blood Transfusion Committee was disbanded in July 1982 on the basis that its work was being duplicated elsewhere.

Published on:

The Advisory Group on Testing for the Presence of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen and Its Antibody advised against screening tests for NANBH in screening blood donors.

Published on:

The DHSS Advisory Group on Hepatitis endorsed the Third Report of the Advisory Group on Testing for the Presence of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen and Its Antibody, advising against NANBH screening.

Published on:

The merits and drawbacks of NANBH surrogate screening were discussed in an editorial in The Lancet.

Published on:

At its first meeting, the UK Working Party on Transfusion-Associated Hepatitis agreed that Dr Brian McClelland would produce an outline study protocol, which might include non-specific markers like ALT level and/or the presence of anti-HBc in donors.

Published on:

At its first meeting, the UK Working Party on Transfusion-Associated Hepatitis agreed that Dr Gunson would ask the MRC if samples from the 1974 UK prospective study on transfusion associated hepatitis could be made available.

Published on:

Dr Gunson asked the MRC if samples from the 1974 UK prospective study on transfusion associated hepatitis could be made available.

Published on:

The MRC sought further information on Dr Gunson's request on samples from the 1974 UK prospective study on transfusion associated hepatitis, including where Dr Gunson believed the samples might be held.

Published on:

Dr Brian McClelland outlined two options for the 1974 UK prospective hepatitis study and suggested that a multi-centre study of this type would cost between £250,000 and £500,000.

Published on:

Dr Brian McClelland contacted Dr James regarding an abstract of prospective study on possible non-A non-B post-transfusion and the availability of samples from their study.

Published on:

Dr James expressed a willingness to collaborate with the Working Party on providing samples from their earlier study while noting he and his colleagues wished to avoid defrosting and refreezing their stored sera on too many occasions.

Published on:

Dr Gunson stated in a letter to Dr Keith Gibson that unless they were able to obtain data relating to the situation within the UK, they may be placed in the position of taking up a test, for medico-legal considerations if nothing else, developed abroad where the incidence or characteristics of the illness differs from that in the UK and such a decision could cost the NHS millions each year.

Published on:

Dr Gibson of the MRC informed Dr Gunson that many of the samples from the previous MRC study had been lost as a result of power failures, an audit of what was left would be carried.

Published on:

Professor Zuckerman informed Dr Gibson that a duplicate set of samples had been disposed of.

Published on: