This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Viral Infections  • Alert me on articles by topic

Bridget M. Kuehn

JAMA. 2006;295:1235-1236.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

When evidence emerged in 2002 that the West Nile virus could be transmitted through blood, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and blood-screening organizations reacted quickly to maintain the safety of the blood supply by screening for this infectious agent. By 2003, the FDA had recommended that blood banks screen blood for the West Nile virus using an investigational nucleic acid test. Since then, blood banks across the country have used various strategies, including individual or pooled blood sample testing, to prevent this infectious agent from contaminating the blood supply.

But some scientists believe these strategies may not provide sufficient public health benefit to justify their expense, and they recommend using more targeted testing strategies that would reduce costs. Two recent cost-effectiveness analyses suggest two reasons for considering alternative screening strategies: the high cost of testing the blood supply and the low risk that infection with . . . [Full Text of this Article]

SHIFTING STRATEGIES