Detecting Bioterror Attacks by Screening Blood Donors: A Best-Case Analysis
To assess whether screening blood donors could provide early warning of a bioterror attack, we combined stochastic models of blood donation and the workings of blood tests with an epidemic model to derive the probability distribution of the time to detect an attack under assumptions favorable to blo...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
2003-08-01
|
Series: | Emerging Infectious Diseases |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/8/03-0079_article |
id |
doaj-8a86b0273ecb4e5cbbc358d13c204457 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-8a86b0273ecb4e5cbbc358d13c2044572020-11-25T00:37:57ZengCenters for Disease Control and PreventionEmerging Infectious Diseases1080-60401080-60592003-08-019890991410.3201/eid0908.030079Detecting Bioterror Attacks by Screening Blood Donors: A Best-Case AnalysisEdward H. KaplanChristopher A. PattonWilliam P. FitzGeraldLawrence M. WeinTo assess whether screening blood donors could provide early warning of a bioterror attack, we combined stochastic models of blood donation and the workings of blood tests with an epidemic model to derive the probability distribution of the time to detect an attack under assumptions favorable to blood donor screening. Comparing the attack detection delay to the incubation times of the most feared bioterror agents shows that even under such optimistic conditions, victims of a bioterror attack would likely exhibit symptoms before the attack was detected through blood donor screening. For example, an attack infecting 100 persons with a noncontagious agent such as Bacillus anthracis would only have a 26% chance of being detected within 25 days; yet, at an assumed additional charge of $10 per test, donor screening would cost $139 million per year. Furthermore, even if screening tests were 99.99% specific, 1,390 false-positive results would occur each year. Therefore, screening blood donors for bioterror agents should not be used to detect a bioterror attack.https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/8/03-0079_articlebioterrorismblood donorsdisease outbreaksPerspectiveprobabilitystochastic processes |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Edward H. Kaplan Christopher A. Patton William P. FitzGerald Lawrence M. Wein |
spellingShingle |
Edward H. Kaplan Christopher A. Patton William P. FitzGerald Lawrence M. Wein Detecting Bioterror Attacks by Screening Blood Donors: A Best-Case Analysis Emerging Infectious Diseases bioterrorism blood donors disease outbreaks Perspective probability stochastic processes |
author_facet |
Edward H. Kaplan Christopher A. Patton William P. FitzGerald Lawrence M. Wein |
author_sort |
Edward H. Kaplan |
title |
Detecting Bioterror Attacks by Screening Blood Donors: A Best-Case Analysis |
title_short |
Detecting Bioterror Attacks by Screening Blood Donors: A Best-Case Analysis |
title_full |
Detecting Bioterror Attacks by Screening Blood Donors: A Best-Case Analysis |
title_fullStr |
Detecting Bioterror Attacks by Screening Blood Donors: A Best-Case Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Detecting Bioterror Attacks by Screening Blood Donors: A Best-Case Analysis |
title_sort |
detecting bioterror attacks by screening blood donors: a best-case analysis |
publisher |
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
series |
Emerging Infectious Diseases |
issn |
1080-6040 1080-6059 |
publishDate |
2003-08-01 |
description |
To assess whether screening blood donors could provide early warning of a bioterror attack, we combined stochastic models of blood donation and the workings of blood tests with an epidemic model to derive the probability distribution of the time to detect an attack under assumptions favorable to blood donor screening. Comparing the attack detection delay to the incubation times of the most feared bioterror agents shows that even under such optimistic conditions, victims of a bioterror attack would likely exhibit symptoms before the attack was detected through blood donor screening. For example, an attack infecting 100 persons with a noncontagious agent such as Bacillus anthracis would only have a 26% chance of being detected within 25 days; yet, at an assumed additional charge of $10 per test, donor screening would cost $139 million per year. Furthermore, even if screening tests were 99.99% specific, 1,390 false-positive results would occur each year. Therefore, screening blood donors for bioterror agents should not be used to detect a bioterror attack. |
topic |
bioterrorism blood donors disease outbreaks Perspective probability stochastic processes |
url |
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/8/03-0079_article |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT edwardhkaplan detectingbioterrorattacksbyscreeningblooddonorsabestcaseanalysis AT christopherapatton detectingbioterrorattacksbyscreeningblooddonorsabestcaseanalysis AT williampfitzgerald detectingbioterrorattacksbyscreeningblooddonorsabestcaseanalysis AT lawrencemwein detectingbioterrorattacksbyscreeningblooddonorsabestcaseanalysis |
_version_ |
1725298813106651136 |