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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Edward H. Kaplan, Christopher A. Patton, William P. FitzGerald, Lawrence M. Wein
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